Avatar

Our Destiny (Destiny)

by CruelLEGACEY @, Toronto, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 13:09 (333 days ago)

Big news:

https://www.bungie.net/en/News/Article/47569

When we first launched our partnership with Activision in 2010, the gaming industry was in a pretty different place. As an independent studio setting out to build a brand new experience, we wanted a partner willing to take a big leap of faith with us. We had a vision for Destiny that we believed in, but to launch a game of that magnitude, we needed the support of an established publishing partner.

With Activision, we created something special. To date, Destiny has delivered a combination of over 50 million games and expansions to players all around the world. More importantly, we’ve also witnessed a remarkable community – tens of millions of Guardians strong – rise up and embrace Destiny, to play together, to make and share memories, and even to do truly great things that reach far beyond the game we share, to deliver a positive impact on people’s everyday lives.

We have enjoyed a successful eight-year run and would like to thank Activision for their partnership on Destiny. Looking ahead, we’re excited to announce plans for Activision to transfer publishing rights for Destiny to Bungie. With our remarkable Destiny community, we are ready to publish on our own, while Activision will increase their focus on owned IP projects.

The planned transition process is already underway in its early stages, with Bungie and Activision both committed to making sure the handoff is as seamless as possible.

With Forsaken, we’ve learned, and listened, and leaned in to what we believe our players want from a great Destiny experience. Rest assured there is more of that on the way. We’ll continue to deliver on the existing Destiny roadmap, and we’re looking forward to releasing more seasonal experiences in the coming months, as well as surprising our community with some exciting announcements about what lies beyond.

Thank you so much for your continued support. Our success is owed in no small part to the incredible community of players who have graced our worlds with light and life. We know self-publishing won’t be easy; there’s still much for us to learn as we grow as an independent, global studio, but we see unbounded opportunities and potential in Destiny. We know that new adventures await us all on new worlds filled with mystery, adventure, and hope. We hope you’ll join us there.

See you starside.

BUNGiE

Avatar

Our Destiny

by ManKitten ⌂, The Stugotz is strong in me., Thursday, January 10, 2019, 13:28 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Well that's interesting. I don't know Bungie's partnership history pre-halo, but since then, will this be the first time they've not had an "overlord"?

It will be fun to see what Bungie does in their own pirate ship!

Pimps at Sea, matey.

by Traxus, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 13:59 (333 days ago) @ ManKitten

It will be fun to see what Bungie does in their own pirate ship!

It always seemed a little strange how Bungie sought freedom from Microsoft only to place themselves under the thumb of another corporate behemoth. I assume it won't be easy to shake the whole trajectory of Activision's content schedule but it'll be interesting to see how they course-correct from this point. I bet everyone at Bungie is totally amped.

Avatar

Pimps at Sea, matey.

by Harmanimus @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 19:37 (333 days ago) @ Traxus

I think they learned from the Microsoft stuff what they could benefit from and what they could do better. The agreement with Activision seems to have had them make some sacrifices for assurances that Destiny would remain theirs in the future.

Avatar

Whoa. Awesome!

by ncsuDuncan @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 13:32 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

- No text -

Avatar

Dear Bungie

by breitzen @, Kansas, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 13:32 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

We know self-publishing won’t be easy; there’s still much for us to learn as we grow as an independent, global studio, but we see unbounded opportunities and potential in Destiny. We know that new adventures await us all on new worlds filled with mystery, adventure, and hope. We hope you’ll join us there.

I can't wait to see what your future of Destiny is.

See You Starside

Avatar

Dear Bungie

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:13 (333 days ago) @ breitzen
edited by Cody Miller, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:19

We know self-publishing won’t be easy; there’s still much for us to learn as we grow as an independent, global studio, but we see unbounded opportunities and potential in Destiny. We know that new adventures await us all on new worlds filled with mystery, adventure, and hope. We hope you’ll join us there.


I can't wait to see what your future of Destiny is.

See You Starside

They would have to beat history.

Bungie has never really been able to be a two game studio. So either Matter is coming way later, Destiny is going to wind down, or they have somehow changed and have the ability to reasonably do two games at a time.

But, this is certainly welcome news.

Avatar

Dear Bungie

by Jillybean, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:38 (333 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Wait, Matter? What? Cliff notes? Who even am I?

Avatar

Dear Bungie

by cheapLEY @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 15:00 (333 days ago) @ Jillybean

Wait, Matter? What? Cliff notes? Who even am I?

NetEase, a Chinese company responsible for tons of bad, microtransaction-filled mobile games, bought a $100 million stake in Bungie earlier this year.

Not long after, it was revealed that Bungie filed a trademark for "Matter." We don't really know much else.

[image]

Avatar

Dear Bungie

by Jillybean, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 15:09 (333 days ago) @ cheapLEY

Oooh pretty colours.

I'm looking forward to the mobile game it represents.

Avatar

Our Destiny

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 13:32 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

At the very least, we will know what decision making was Bungie and which was Activision. Kinda, because they are now partly on a content course that may have been set by Activision.

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by CruelLEGACEY @, Toronto, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 13:46 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

So this is certainly a big deal for BUNGiE and Destiny. It’s totally possible that this all stems from mundane differences in how BUNGiE and Activision wanted to proceed with Destiny moving forward; disagreements around DLC/Expansion/Season Pass/Eververse issues. It’s no secret that there has been tension between BUNGiE and Activision over these issues. But this move strikes me as too drastic to be caused by those sorts of issues. It seems more likely to me that the thing that might lead to a complete split would be if Bungie’s vision for the future of Destiny was so different from what the plan has been so far, that Activision simply wouldn’t allow it, thus necessitating the split.

My hope, is that BUNGiE is moving away from Destiny 3, and is instead planning to continue building major releases as part of the Destiny 2 platform.

I know it’s unlikely, but a man can dream :)

Avatar

That was my first thought as well.

by cheapLEY @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 13:53 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

I certainly hope that's in the cards.

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by ManKitten ⌂, The Stugotz is strong in me., Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:06 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

So this is certainly a big deal for BUNGiE and Destiny. It’s totally possible that this all stems from mundane differences in how BUNGiE and Activision wanted to proceed with Destiny moving forward; disagreements around DLC/Expansion/Season Pass/Eververse issues. It’s no secret that there has been tension between BUNGiE and Activision over these issues. But this move strikes me as too drastic to be caused by those sorts of issues. It seems more likely to me that the thing that might lead to a complete split would be if Bungie’s vision for the future of Destiny was so different from what the plan has been so far, that Activision simply wouldn’t allow it, thus necessitating the split.

My hope, is that BUNGiE is moving away from Destiny 3, and is instead planning to continue building major releases as part of the Destiny 2 platform.

I know it’s unlikely, but a man can dream :)

I was just curious if was even necessary to have a publisher. I'm curious now what the numbers are with digital download vs physical. As for marketing, social media is a major player for distributing media. In an age now where Bungie can do all of this stuff themselves, Activision is just a large hand in the pot taking profits. And with the thoughts I just mentioned, what USED to make a game publisher needed is no longer a viable source of income...and if Activision was pressing them to do things to increase profit (since it was circulated that earning reports were disappointing) then you basically have a relationship where neither party benefits.

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:10 (333 days ago) @ ManKitten

I was just curious if was even necessary to have a publisher.

Yes it was. The financial burden required to create Destiny was such that there were actually only five publishers in existence at the time who could have even done the job: EA, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Activision.

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by ManKitten ⌂, The Stugotz is strong in me., Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:19 (333 days ago) @ Cody Miller

I was just curious if was even necessary to have a publisher.


Yes it was. The financial burden required to create Destiny was such that there were actually only five publishers in existence at the time who could have even done the job: EA, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Activision.

Fair enough, I guess my "was" was meant in current tense. For a AAA developer, how necessary is an outside publisher in an age where (aside from start-up capital) the developer could handle distribution and marketing in-house?

My crazy/unlikely theory

by FyreWulff, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:39 (333 days ago) @ ManKitten

It's definitely different than it was in 2010. IIRC even in 2010 you still needed to have a "known publisher" to even release on console, for discs and even digitally; MS and Sony didn't truly allow self-publish digitally, even for sizable devs. Even devs that LOOKED like they were self-publishing were actually set up as MS or Sony publishing them.


Nowdays all 3 (MS, Sony, Nintendo) will just let you publish a game as long as you can secure your devkit.

A Publisher Is Usually Necessary

by digital_ronin, Monday, January 14, 2019, 11:10 (330 days ago) @ ManKitten
edited by digital_ronin, Monday, January 14, 2019, 11:40

A publisher is usually necessary when building a AAA game. The publisher pays/helps pay the bills during the creation/development period, with the idea that they will make more money on the release of the game. Making a AAA game is a huge expense which is probably why Bungie needed Activision to begin with and why Activision wanted a contractual release cadence.

There are a few exceptions to this Epic has a large money maker in the Unreal Engine licenses (although I'm not seeing Unreal Engine used as much as it used to) to bankroll the initial development of Fortnite. Some games have been able to use Early Access, like PUBG, to help keep the lights on.

Publishers also have access to localization teams to help get your product out to a worldwide audience and marketing and sales teams in those territories.

While digital distribution has made a lot of this easier, and having an established IP like Destiny will help too, this is still a competitive environment and publishing isn't easy.

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by squidnh3, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:39 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

I'd say it's possible this is just as much Activision dumping Bungie. As a publically traded company, Activision is under pressure to deliver growth. They may have decided they don't see that happening with Destiny anymore, especially given they didn't own the IP to begin with, and Bungie would have been free to walk away with it in a few years anyway (based on the original leaked contract).

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:42 (333 days ago) @ squidnh3

I'd say it's possible this is just as much Activision dumping Bungie. As a publically traded company, Activision is under pressure to deliver growth. They may have decided they don't see that happening with Destiny anymore, especially given they didn't own the IP to begin with, and Bungie would have been free to walk away with it in a few years anyway (based on the original leaked contract).

It was the other way around. After forsaken ACTIVISION was the one who was allowed to walk away. Think about it. They did it basically as soon as they contractually could.

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by squidnh3, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:54 (333 days ago) @ Cody Miller

I'd say it's possible this is just as much Activision dumping Bungie. As a publically traded company, Activision is under pressure to deliver growth. They may have decided they don't see that happening with Destiny anymore, especially given they didn't own the IP to begin with, and Bungie would have been free to walk away with it in a few years anyway (based on the original leaked contract).


It was the other way around. After forsaken ACTIVISION was the one who was allowed to walk away. Think about it. They did it basically as soon as they contractually could.

Isn't that what I just said? Activision decided to stop paying Bungie to develop games for a franchise that Activision could never control the ultimate future of.

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:56 (333 days ago) @ squidnh3

I'd say it's possible this is just as much Activision dumping Bungie. As a publically traded company, Activision is under pressure to deliver growth. They may have decided they don't see that happening with Destiny anymore, especially given they didn't own the IP to begin with, and Bungie would have been free to walk away with it in a few years anyway (based on the original leaked contract).


It was the other way around. After forsaken ACTIVISION was the one who was allowed to walk away. Think about it. They did it basically as soon as they contractually could.


Isn't that what I just said? Activision decided to stop paying Bungie to develop games for a franchise that Activision could never control the ultimate future of.

You did.

I should READ.

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by squidnh3, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 15:03 (333 days ago) @ Cody Miller

I should READ.

I was gonna say, I hope you write better than you read, haha. This should be an interesting chapter in the ol' book.

Avatar

My crazy/unlikely theory

by cheapLEY @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:42 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Jason Schreier tweeted a few things regarding this:

My crazy/unlikely theory

by Avateur @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 17:54 (333 days ago) @ cheapLEY

He elaborated further in the comments of the Kotaku article:

“But Activision is an easy scapegoat. Most if not all of Destiny’s mistakes came from Bungie, not the publisher, and self-publishing a game is really fucking hard. In addition to the risk, Bungie now has to handle many of the business aspects of game development that Activision was handling before — PR, marketing, biz dev, distribution, etc. Bungie has been through this before -- remember when it split from Microsoft in 2007? Things weren’t so rosy in the years after that.

So I’d say be cautiously optimistic.”

Avatar

Wha-wha-wha-whaaat?

by Leviathan, The Midwest, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:16 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

- No text -

Is that a Levi sighting?

by ChrisTheeCrappy, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:25 (333 days ago) @ Leviathan

- No text -

Avatar

No. Can't be. They live only as legends.

by INSANEdrive, ಥ_ಥ | f(ಠ‿↼)z | ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ| \[T]/, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:28 (333 days ago) @ ChrisTheeCrappy

- No text -

Avatar

Our Destiny

by INSANEdrive, ಥ_ಥ | f(ಠ‿↼)z | ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ| \[T]/, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:18 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

We have enjoyed a successful eight-year run and would like to thank Activision for their partnership on Destiny. Looking ahead, we’re excited to announce plans for Activision to transfer publishing rights for Destiny to Bungie. With our remarkable Destiny community, we are ready to publish on our own, while Activision will increase their focus on owned IP projects.

The planned transition process is already underway in its early stages, with Bungie and Activision both committed to making sure the handoff is as seamless as possible.

[u][i][b][image] [/b][/i][/u]

Avatar

Our Destiny

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:20 (333 days ago) @ INSANEdrive

We have enjoyed a successful eight-year run and would like to thank Activision for their partnership on Destiny. Looking ahead, we’re excited to announce plans for Activision to transfer publishing rights for Destiny to Bungie. With our remarkable Destiny community, we are ready to publish on our own, while Activision will increase their focus on owned IP projects.

The planned transition process is already underway in its early stages, with Bungie and Activision both committed to making sure the handoff is as seamless as possible.


[u][i][b][image] [/b][/i][/u]

Yeah but what if they go and give the publishing rights to Netease… lol. They’d better keep them.

Avatar

SHUT UP CODY!

by INSANEdrive, ಥ_ಥ | f(ಠ‿↼)z | ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ| \[T]/, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:21 (333 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Yeah but what if they go and give the publishing rights to Netease… lol. They’d better keep them.

LET ME HAVE THIS MAN! ;_; DON"T YOU PUT THAT JUJU ON 'EM!

Avatar

Congrats, BUNGiE.

by UnrealCh13f @, San Luis Obispo, CA, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:19 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

- No text -

Our Destiny

by FyreWulff, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 14:33 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Great news.

(bet that NetEase investment money also helped)

Our Destiny

by BOLL ⌂ @, Sweden, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 15:07 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Good riddance. Still not sure what that NetEase investment means, how big a share is that?

Avatar

Our Destiny

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Monday, January 14, 2019, 12:42 (329 days ago) @ BOLL

Good riddance. Still not sure what that NetEase investment means, how big a share is that?

I don't know, BOLL, but it's a minority stake according to this article. They have a seat on the board of directors.

How have you been, my friend? Still staying on the cutting edge of VR?

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by Revenant1988 ⌂ @, How do I forum?, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 15:35 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

They lost me with D2.

I'm not going to pick it back up, but I'll likely give D3 a chance if Bungie has full control.

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by cheapLEY @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 16:06 (333 days ago) @ Revenant1988

They lost me with D2.

I'm not going to pick it back up, but I'll likely give D3 a chance if Bungie has full control.

What will you do if there is no D3 at this point, and they instead just continue to support D2 as a real live game?

Not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious, because that seems to be at the top of the list of things people actually want to happen now.

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 16:08 (333 days ago) @ cheapLEY

They lost me with D2.

I'm not going to pick it back up, but I'll likely give D3 a chance if Bungie has full control.


What will you do if there is no D3 at this point, and they instead just continue to support D2 as a real live game?

Not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious, because that seems to be at the top of the list of things people actually want to happen now.

I know what YOU'LL do. You'll have to buy me Last of Us 2 :-p

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by cheapLEY @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 16:21 (333 days ago) @ Cody Miller

They lost me with D2.

I'm not going to pick it back up, but I'll likely give D3 a chance if Bungie has full control.


What will you do if there is no D3 at this point, and they instead just continue to support D2 as a real live game?

Not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious, because that seems to be at the top of the list of things people actually want to happen now.


I know what YOU'LL do. You'll have to buy me Last of Us 2 :-p

That is absolutely not the bet we made. A key part of what you said is that Bungie will license or sell the Destiny IP.

Continuing to support Desitny 2 isn't licensing or selling Destiny.

I even asked the question about that exact situation, and we never resolved it. This isn't me trying to wiggle out of a bet--the key thing I was betting against is that Bungie will bow out of continuing to make Destiny.

I'll bet you a copy of Destiny 3 that doesn't happen, and that Bungie will be the developer of that game.

If they're still working on Destiny after this year, that would effectively be Destiny 3, wouldn't it? If we see another Comet release, I mean.

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 16:53 (333 days ago) @ cheapLEY

They lost me with D2.

I'm not going to pick it back up, but I'll likely give D3 a chance if Bungie has full control.


What will you do if there is no D3 at this point, and they instead just continue to support D2 as a real live game?

Not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious, because that seems to be at the top of the list of things people actually want to happen now.


I know what YOU'LL do. You'll have to buy me Last of Us 2 :-p


That is absolutely not the bet we made. A key part of what you said is that Bungie will license or sell the Destiny IP.

Continuing to support Desitny 2 isn't licensing or selling Destiny.

I even asked the question about that exact situation, and we never resolved it. This isn't me trying to wiggle out of a bet--the key thing I was betting against is that Bungie will bow out of continuing to make Destiny.

I'll bet you a copy of Destiny 3 that doesn't happen, and that Bungie will be the developer of that game.

If they're still working on Destiny after this year, that would effectively be Destiny 3, wouldn't it? If we see another Comet release, I mean.

Hmmmmmmm. I guess we call it off.

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by cheapLEY @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 17:33 (333 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Again, not trying to renege on a bet. I just think maybe we were talking about different things. I wasn't so much focused on whether Destiny 3 is a standalone game or just continued support for Destiny in general, just that Bungie would still be the ones making it.

How do you measure who's more correct when half the terms have been met, but not the other?

If anyone cares and says I'm wrong on this and interpreted it in the same way you did, I have no problem sending you The Last of Us 2 (which they're going to announce the release date for soon, apparently).

If Bungie somehow isn't the one to make the next Destiny release after the annual pass stuff (whether that be another expansion or a brand new game), you will have undeniably won the bet.

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by SIX min WHISTLE @, Michigan, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 18:43 (333 days ago) @ cheapLEY

I don't see Marty coming back. From all the info that came out I don't see him wanting to work with the studio again. Yes, there was obviously influence from Activision but it seems it was the bigwigs at Bungie themselves that fired him for not falling in line, and then his former writing partner just stepped right in and took his place. Maybe it isn't like that and there is no bad blood, but it's not the impression I've gotten.

I think they kind of have to make a new game.

1. Destiny 2 is tainted. We know from Activision financial info that even with extremely positive word of mouth Forsaken did not do as well as expected by a decent margin. Plenty of once dedicated players like Revenant and myself have dropped the game entirely.

2. There is no way the next game isn't already decently far along in development. The only counterpoint I see to this is D3 likely being on the same engine still, so that work could probably be transitioned over if they do keep 2 as a base.

3. Outside investment. At this point Bungie is still likely to need investment. Unless they go way outside the box and go down the Warframe or Fortnite monitziation paths it's likely they'll at least need a to sell a new game to make decent money. I know I've continuted to stay away from D2 because you constantly need to buy new expansions to keep up, so I think buying the current Destiny game is a hard sell for a lot of lapsed players.

Best I can see is them re-branding D2. Calling it a new, non-numbered name like Destiny: Subtitle, and changing how content is added to the game, while also making it a new boxed copy and very clearly outlining what the plan is going forward.

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Friday, January 11, 2019, 05:10 (333 days ago) @ SIX min WHISTLE

I don't see Marty coming back. From all the info that came out I don't see him wanting to work with the studio again. Yes, there was obviously influence from Activision but it seems it was the bigwigs at Bungie themselves that fired him for not falling in line, and then his former writing partner just stepped right in and took his place. Maybe it isn't like that and there is no bad blood, but it's not the impression I've gotten.

I feel confident saying there is no bad blood between Marty and Michael, but I do think Marty's return to Bungie, if it were to happen, is greatly dependent on certain people no longer being at Bungie.


I think they kind of have to make a new game.

1. Destiny 2 is tainted. We know from Activision financial info that even with extremely positive word of mouth Forsaken did not do as well as expected by a decent margin. Plenty of once dedicated players like Revenant and myself have dropped the game entirely.

2. There is no way the next game isn't already decently far along in development. The only counterpoint I see to this is D3 likely being on the same engine still, so that work could probably be transitioned over if they do keep 2 as a base.

3. Outside investment. At this point Bungie is still likely to need investment. Unless they go way outside the box and go down the Warframe or Fortnite monitziation paths it's likely they'll at least need a to sell a new game to make decent money. I know I've continuted to stay away from D2 because you constantly need to buy new expansions to keep up, so I think buying the current Destiny game is a hard sell for a lot of lapsed players.

Best I can see is them re-branding D2. Calling it a new, non-numbered name like Destiny: Subtitle, and changing how content is added to the game, while also making it a new boxed copy and very clearly outlining what the plan is going forward.

Destiny: Beyond Infinite

Destiny: So Infinite You Wouldn't Believe It

something like that.

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by marmot 1333 @, Friday, January 11, 2019, 11:42 (333 days ago) @ Kermit

Destiny: Combat Evolved

Avatar

Fun with Titles

by INSANEdrive, ಥ_ಥ | f(ಠ‿↼)z | ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ| \[T]/, Friday, January 11, 2019, 11:47 (333 days ago) @ Kermit

I think they kind of have to make a new game.

1. Destiny 2 is tainted. We know from Activision financial info that even with extremely positive word of mouth Forsaken did not do as well as expected by a decent margin. Plenty of once dedicated players like Revenant and myself have dropped the game entirely.

2. There is no way the next game isn't already decently far along in development. The only counterpoint I see to this is D3 likely being on the same engine still, so that work could probably be transitioned over if they do keep 2 as a base.

3. Outside investment. At this point Bungie is still likely to need investment. Unless they go way outside the box and go down the Warframe or Fortnite monitziation paths it's likely they'll at least need a to sell a new game to make decent money. I know I've continuted to stay away from D2 because you constantly need to buy new expansions to keep up, so I think buying the current Destiny game is a hard sell for a lot of lapsed players.

Best I can see is them re-branding D2. Calling it a new, non-numbered name like Destiny: Subtitle, and changing how content is added to the game, while also making it a new boxed copy and very clearly outlining what the plan is going forward.


Destiny: Beyond Infinite

Destiny: So Infinite You Wouldn't Believe It

something like that.

Destiny: Labyrinths of the Vex
Destiny: Rasputin
Destiny: The Fallen Iron Lords
Destiny: Deity Destroyer
Destiny: Combat *KA-BOOOSHm*
Destiny: Stretch

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by Revenant1988 ⌂ @, How do I forum?, Friday, January 11, 2019, 16:16 (332 days ago) @ cheapLEY

They lost me with D2.

I'm not going to pick it back up, but I'll likely give D3 a chance if Bungie has full control.


What will you do if there is no D3 at this point, and they instead just continue to support D2 as a real live game?

Not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious, because that seems to be at the top of the list of things people actually want to happen now.

Not gonna pop in D2 for any reason at this point, except maybe if I need references for Cosplay and replica stuff I like to make. Even then, I can ask Korny for help on that. I imagine, that there WILL be a D3, since we'll have new consoles out here 'soon'. So, there will at least be an engine change... I would think. I'll give that one a fair shot, all things being equal.

What pushed me away from Destiny is the following, in order:

1.) Weak narrative, uninteresting story, silent guardian (though much better than D1! And perhaps the nature of the game, this cannot be improved)

2.) The feeling that I had to play all the time to "keep up" to be able to play with friends (I realized later, that it doesn't matter for most activities, but it does for the best ones)

3.) Recycled content, bland content ('old' weapons and armors, re-skinned existing weapons with different rolls, freakin' Curse of Osiris. Didn't even try WarMind and paid for that shi.

4.) Reduced sense of mystery due to the HiveMind that is the internet, and streamers. (This is not Bungie's fault, but I can't help but speculate how much of what they do hinges on the whims of the Twitch crowd, etc)

Destiny, as it currently is, should be more like WoW or Overwatch, in the sense that it doesn't get numbered sequels, and simply just keeps expanding on the core game. Maybe even a monthly subscription. I fired up Halo:MCC on Christmas and have been playing like crazy. I simply lacked the time I felt Destiny required to have any fun with it. Right now, if I have time to play it's a couple hours in the evening and I simply get more joy playing Halo and Overwatch and I'm literally not chasing anything, except the multi-player win or neck-neck objective game.

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by Avateur @, Friday, January 11, 2019, 16:40 (332 days ago) @ Revenant1988

Everything you just said is exactly what I feel and why I’m done. And Overwatch and MCC are all I’m playing outside of my Switch. Great post!

Please

by MartyTheElder, Friday, January 11, 2019, 20:06 (332 days ago) @ Revenant1988

Stop responding to the title this thread!

Use mine instead.

Thanks.

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by Traxus, Monday, January 14, 2019, 16:42 (329 days ago) @ Revenant1988

I assume there's still some sore feelings but if Marty came back...dude. The next game would be an insta-buy. Bring back Joe Staten while you're at it; I imagine the first game wouldn't have been such a mess if they went with his storytelling direction over the less-is-more approach.

Avatar

Wooo! Now, bring Marty back!

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Monday, January 14, 2019, 18:25 (329 days ago) @ Traxus

I assume there's still some sore feelings but if Marty came back...dude. The next game would be an insta-buy. Bring back Joe Staten while you're at it; I imagine the first game wouldn't have been such a mess if they went with his storytelling direction over the less-is-more approach.

There is basically zero chance Joe would return.

Avatar

Our Destiny

by zumphry @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 16:04 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Broke: I hope this means upcoming D2 stuff (and beyond) actually gets more time in development and we see it further become what everyone always wished it could be. Also hope that since they're now not fully obligated to be Destiny-only, that teams in Bungie could branch out and work on small-scale games instead of just goliathans.

Woke: Ditch Destiny entirely, and give me Marathon: Pfhor!!!!!! Stuff the Marathon lore loving weirdos in charge of the grimoire and the weirdos who made both the Eternity and Equinox maps into a janitor's closet and go bankrupt trying to make 5D Space work in VR and the Switch!!!!!!!

Avatar

Our Destiny

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 16:08 (333 days ago) @ zumphry

Broke: I hope this means upcoming D2 stuff (and beyond) actually gets more time in development and we see it further become what everyone always wished it could be.

Interestingly, Bungie likely is not going to be able to lean on Vicarious Visions and High Moon for help anymore… I wonder how this is going to factor in to the creation of more Destiny stuff.

Avatar

Our Destiny

by zumphry @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 16:19 (333 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Broke: I hope this means upcoming D2 stuff (and beyond) actually gets more time in development and we see it further become what everyone always wished it could be.


Interestingly, Bungie likely is not going to be able to lean on Vicarious Visions and High Moon for help anymore… I wonder how this is going to factor in to the creation of more Destiny stuff.

Might see them contract the work they did out to other places (Certain Affinity? High Wire?), or go bankrupt hiring another 800 people while trying to prove the Mythical Man Month wrong by making Destiny 3, Matter, Myth III, and M4r4thon: P4hor at the same time.

Avatar

tl;dr Destiny not showing growth, Activision dumps Bungie.

by Korny @, Dalton, Ga. US. Earth, Sol System, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 16:09 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Is what a true cynic would say. :P

But still, it is interesting that Activision would forgo their three game contract. Was the annual pass the Hail Mary that didn’t pan out?

And what does this mean with the Netease deal? During that announcement last year, Bungie said that Activision would continue to help them build on Destiny, but now that that’s out the window...

Sure, it leaves Bungie in a delicate position publishing-wise, but if DE made it work, this really could open so many doors for them, so here’s hoping things get better now (and if they don’t, people can’t use the old Activision excuse anymore, so that’ll be interesting).

tl;dr Destiny not showing growth, Activision dumps Bungie.

by FyreWulff, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 18:04 (333 days ago) @ Korny

Technically, the publishing agreement was almost over. It's likely that Bungie's NetEase investment simply let them move up the timetable by buying out the last couple of years on it.


Interestingly, people just assumed that Activision would be involved with Destiny forever. I don't think many actually believed Activision's publishing agreement was actually time limited, and turns out it really was.

Avatar

Can we have "letters to the webmaster" back?

by Schedonnardus @, Texas, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 18:10 (333 days ago) @ FyreWulff

- No text -

Avatar

Aren't we all secretly drunks in ape suits.

by INSANEdrive, ಥ_ಥ | f(ಠ‿↼)z | ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ| \[T]/, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 23:13 (333 days ago) @ Schedonnardus

- No text -

Avatar

Bungie dumped Activision.

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Saturday, January 12, 2019, 07:12 (332 days ago) @ Korny

Is what a true cynic would say. :P

But still, it is interesting that Activision would forgo their three game contract. Was the annual pass the Hail Mary that didn’t pan out?

There's no indication that this move was initiated by ATVI.

Their stock dropped 10% on the news.

The contract allows for early termination with notice by either side in case of uncured material breach (by either side).

The contract also allows for continued royalties and maintenance payments for 2 years following termination. (So terminating 2 years early doesn't have as dramatic an effect as one might think.)

Assuming there is no incurable material breach but all parties are amenable to termination, and Bungie is retaining all IP, it's reasonable to assume that this termination is negotiated, and that Bungie may be forgoing certain kinds of payments that they would otherwise receive if termination was for breach (2 years of payments for backend maintenance, for instance) and allowing ATVI to continue to receive income from Destiny products they have already published (including MTX from D1/D2) in return for ending the deal and letting Bungie keep all of its licenses.

The contract had a very narrow set of circumstances that could have led to ATVI actually owning the Destiny IP, and basically those would have constituted Bungie completely failing to deliver a sale-able product on time.

Bungie dumped Activision.

by metwaf100, Saturday, January 12, 2019, 08:55 (332 days ago) @ narcogen

Agreed, everything points towards Bungie initiating the move.

Forsaken was the best selling game of September, beating out even blockbusters like Spider-man PS4. To Activision however, it was a disappointment.

I have no doubt in mind that the one who ripped the contract was Bungie, no way they would've let Destiny go. It might a lot of money, and this is the first time it was a disappointment, Call of Duty has disappointed many times and they still keep it going, but when they announced that they would look for new monetization methods I think it pushed Bungie too far and the leadership, guys like Butcher, Jones and Parsons who are in the board of directors, probably made the final call to tear up the contract after getting pushed too far.

There has been tension, but the game has been pretty damn profitable, so I agree narcogen, I'm almost certain it was Bungie that decided to let go of Activision as their publishing partner.

Avatar

You're both wrong, but it's okay to have a positive attitude

by Korny @, Dalton, Ga. US. Earth, Sol System, Saturday, January 12, 2019, 09:28 (332 days ago) @ metwaf100
edited by Korny, Saturday, January 12, 2019, 09:46

Agreed, everything points towards Bungie initiating the move.

I mean, with disappointing sales and a poor reception to alternate monetization to boost poor mtx sales, of course Bungie had the upper hand.

Forsaken was the best selling game of September, beating out even blockbusters like Spider-man PS4. To Activision however, it was a disappointment.

You sure about that? According to multiple sources, the top selling games in September were:

1.Marvel's Spider-Man
2.NBA 2K19
3.Assassin's Creed: Odyssey
4.FIFA 19
5.Shadow Of The Tomb Raider
6.Madden NFL 19
7.Forza Horizon 4
8.Destiny 2/Forsaken

From the looks of it, Forsaken was likely the best-selling expansion of September 2018, but by October 2018, it wasn't even on the list anymore...

There has been tension, but the game has been pretty damn profitable, so I agree narcogen, I'm almost certain it was Bungie that decided to let go of Activision as their publishing partner.

The recent stock trends have shown that investors clearly care more about growth than profit, and publishers make their decisions accordingly. BEFORE the split with Bungie, Activision was already showing significant decline in stock value. Not as bad as EA, of course, but the pattern was similar. Of course they'd probably want to trim the fat on franchises and studios that they don't own, and which aren't contributing to their growth. Don't forget that they weren't just funding the thing, they had their own studios, Vicarious Visions and High Moon, also working on Destiny. That's a lot of investment on a product with a poor retention rate.


So yeah, Activision is the one who stood to lose less by releasing Bungie from the contract. But regardless of who dumped who (though remember that Bungie employees were apparently taken by surprise) I see it as a win-win for both companies. Activision bleeds out a bit slower (and all they have to worry about now is CoD as a 1st party property), and Bungie is free to make decisions on their franchise moving forward.

Here's hoping for the best!

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by metwaf100, Sunday, January 13, 2019, 05:57 (331 days ago) @ Korny

No... you're wrong!

https://gamerant.com/destiny-2-digital-console-sales-september-2018/

Destiny 2 was the best selling digital game in the month of September, I mean who the fuck would buy it Physically? The vast, vast majority bought Forsaken digitally.

The list you placed didn't include PC sales and didn't include Digital Sales!

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Sunday, January 13, 2019, 09:03 (331 days ago) @ metwaf100

Destiny 2 was the best selling digital game in the month of September, I mean who the fuck would buy it Physically? The vast, vast majority bought Forsaken digitally.

I did not even know there was a physical option. If I had know, I would have.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by cheapLEY @, Sunday, January 13, 2019, 09:10 (331 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Destiny 2 was the best selling digital game in the month of September, I mean who the fuck would buy it Physically? The vast, vast majority bought Forsaken digitally.


I did not even know there was a physical option. If I had know, I would have.

Why? It would have been useless after the first update and patch. The only thing it would do was make sure you have to put a disc in every time you want to play. I didn’t look, but I imagine it’s probably just a Destiny 2 disc with a code for Forsaken in the box.

Edit: I just looked. That’s exactly what it was. Just Destiny 2 with codes for the expansions.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Sunday, January 13, 2019, 10:38 (331 days ago) @ cheapLEY

Destiny 2 was the best selling digital game in the month of September, I mean who the fuck would buy it Physically? The vast, vast majority bought Forsaken digitally.


I did not even know there was a physical option. If I had know, I would have.


Why? It would have been useless after the first update and patch. The only thing it would do was make sure you have to put a disc in every time you want to play. I didn’t look, but I imagine it’s probably just a Destiny 2 disc with a code for Forsaken in the box.

Edit: I just looked. That’s exactly what it was. Just Destiny 2 with codes for the expansions.

Lame.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by cheapLEY @, Sunday, January 13, 2019, 12:18 (331 days ago) @ Cody Miller

That's my point, though.

It's a live game that requires an always-on internet connection. The first time they patched the game, the disc become irrelevant. The fact that they sell it on a disc at all is silly, to be honest. A base Destiny 2 disc right now is worthless. You'd put it in and have down download tens of gigabytes of updates anyway.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Sunday, January 13, 2019, 12:41 (330 days ago) @ cheapLEY

That's my point, though.

It's a live game that requires an always-on internet connection. The first time they patched the game, the disc become irrelevant. The fact that they sell it on a disc at all is silly, to be honest. A base Destiny 2 disc right now is worthless. You'd put it in and have down download tens of gigabytes of updates anyway.

Actually, that's not how updates work. Most updates modify code and not actually add new stuff. Thus a lot of an update can be reused if you bundle a bunch of updates together. I don't know if they could auto-bundle those updates though. Some might have to be done in order. It would still be bad, but not that bad :D

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by cheapLEY @, Sunday, January 13, 2019, 12:55 (330 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

That's my point, though.

It's a live game that requires an always-on internet connection. The first time they patched the game, the disc become irrelevant. The fact that they sell it on a disc at all is silly, to be honest. A base Destiny 2 disc right now is worthless. You'd put it in and have down download tens of gigabytes of updates anyway.


Actually, that's not how updates work. Most updates modify code and not actually add new stuff. Thus a lot of an update can be reused if you bundle a bunch of updates together. I don't know if they could auto-bundle those updates though. Some might have to be done in order. It would still be bad, but not that bad :D

Sure, but whether you own it or not, you'd still need all of the Curse of Osiris, Warmind, Forsaken, and Annual Pass content. That's a huge amount of data that just isn't on a D2 disc. It's a live game with new content every few months that you are forced to download even if you don't buy it. The disc very quickly becomes outdated.

We're not talking about some form of archiving, either. Destiny 2 will fail to work as a game if we reach the point where you can't reacquire it through Xbox LIVE or PSN, unless someone does a lot of work to cobble together something that handles the backend of the game.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Monday, January 14, 2019, 07:01 (330 days ago) @ cheapLEY

That's my point, though.

It's a live game that requires an always-on internet connection. The first time they patched the game, the disc become irrelevant. The fact that they sell it on a disc at all is silly, to be honest. A base Destiny 2 disc right now is worthless. You'd put it in and have down download tens of gigabytes of updates anyway.


Actually, that's not how updates work. Most updates modify code and not actually add new stuff. Thus a lot of an update can be reused if you bundle a bunch of updates together. I don't know if they could auto-bundle those updates though. Some might have to be done in order. It would still be bad, but not that bad :D


Sure, but whether you own it or not, you'd still need all of the Curse of Osiris, Warmind, Forsaken, and Annual Pass content. That's a huge amount of data that just isn't on a D2 disc. It's a live game with new content every few months that you are forced to download even if you don't buy it. The disc very quickly becomes outdated.

We're not talking about some form of archiving, either. Destiny 2 will fail to work as a game if we reach the point where you can't reacquire it through Xbox LIVE or PSN, unless someone does a lot of work to cobble together something that handles the backend of the game.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I think in this day and age of internet we don't need discs. However, for people with slow internet or those who it's faster to just stop by a store to save themselves 30-40 GB's of their 120 GB's to download is actually faster.

The other thing about discs that is better is the ability to share and/or resell. That is the only reason I buy discs anymore. If I play an campaign driven game I always buy a disc so that I can share it with my brother or friends if they want to play.

But again, discs are becoming less and less useful, that is until we find a better way to store media in physical format and the size of games are big enough. Which I don't see happening anytime soon.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Monday, January 14, 2019, 11:54 (330 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I think in this day and age of internet we don't need discs.

We need discs more than ever. The ability to play your games in the future the way you originally bought them is going away fast. At least with a disc it is theoretically possible to do so.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by CruelLEGACEY @, Toronto, Monday, January 14, 2019, 12:25 (329 days ago) @ Cody Miller

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I think in this day and age of internet we don't need discs.


We need discs more than ever. The ability to play your games in the future the way you originally bought them is going away fast. At least with a disc it is theoretically possible to do so.

The point in this case is that "Destiny 2" is available on a disc. Everything since then is optional DLC, which is downloaded and bolted on to the main game. They technically couldn't sell Forsaken on a disc because you're already playing Destiny 2... so if you're using discs, the D2 disc is already in your console.

There's no need or reason to sell and expansion like Forsaken on a disc, especially in Destiny's case (where the game is completely dependent on server-side updates and data... the disc is just a delivery method that saves us from downloading the first ~50 gigs of content).

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by cheapLEY @, Monday, January 14, 2019, 14:00 (329 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Thanks. That’s my point.

I’m personally done with discs, but I’m not arguing against their existence. Just that it’s unnecessary for a game like Destiny. Your D1 disc doesn’t give you Dinklebot back. Sure, that data is still on the disc, but you’re not going to be able to see it in the game without a whole lot of work.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 06:32 (329 days ago) @ Cody Miller

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I think in this day and age of internet we don't need discs.


We need discs more than ever. The ability to play your games in the future the way you originally bought them is going away fast. At least with a disc it is theoretically possible to do so.

And this is where I completely disagree with you :P

Updates are done for a reason.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 08:30 (329 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I think in this day and age of internet we don't need discs.


We need discs more than ever. The ability to play your games in the future the way you originally bought them is going away fast. At least with a disc it is theoretically possible to do so.


And this is where I completely disagree with you :P

Updates are done for a reason.

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?

Maybe if you couldn’t update whenever you wanted developers would take more care with their testing and code.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 08:52 (329 days ago) @ Cody Miller

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I think in this day and age of internet we don't need discs.


We need discs more than ever. The ability to play your games in the future the way you originally bought them is going away fast. At least with a disc it is theoretically possible to do so.


And this is where I completely disagree with you :P

Updates are done for a reason.


To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?

For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.

Maybe if you couldn’t update whenever you wanted developers would take more care with their testing and code.

As a software developer, giving users the ability to update things at their leisure is a courtesy, it's not done because it's the wisest thing to do.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 09:47 (329 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?


For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.

So I guess you are cool with not having an official HD version of the Original Star Wars Trilogy. It's Lucas' right after all.

No, fuck that. I'm going to download the scan of the technicolor print because someone had a physical copy.

It's as much our right to preserve art and culture as is their right to change shit.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 09:54 (329 days ago) @ Cody Miller

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?


For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.


So I guess you are cool with not having an official HD version of the Original Star Wars Trilogy. It's Lucas' right after all.

No, fuck that. I'm going to download the scan of the technicolor print because someone had a physical copy.

It's as much our right to preserve art and culture as is their right to change shit.

I completely agree with you that we should preserve the history of video games. I completely agree that the rise of new types of games like Destiny that attempt to present a living world make the task of preserving history more difficult. Such games shouldn't cease to exist because the task of preserving them is more difficult.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 10:02 (329 days ago) @ Kermit

I completely agree with you that we should preserve the history of video games. I completely agree that the rise of new types of games like Destiny that attempt to present a living world make the task of preserving history more difficult. Such games shouldn't cease to exist because the task of preserving them is more difficult.

I mean, in theory someday someone could write an emulator or hack the PS4 and create a fake set of Bungie.net servers. That's a monumental task, but at least it's within the realm of possibility. I mean, there are fake WoW servers that let you play old versions of the game.

But only because there exist original game discs out there… If the game was purely digital you would have to find someone who had never updated the game…

I think those FPGA consoles for NES/SNES etc are generally a good thing in preserving games. However, I wonder if that will even be possible in the coming years given that modern consoles have their own OSes and DRM systems.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 10:14 (329 days ago) @ Cody Miller
edited by MacAddictXIV, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 10:32

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?


For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.


So I guess you are cool with not having an official HD version of the Original Star Wars Trilogy. It's Lucas' right after all.

Media is different than software. Media doesn't stop working when it gets a bug.

No, fuck that. I'm going to download the scan of the technicolor print because someone had a physical copy.

It's as much our right to preserve art and culture as is their right to change shit.

No, it's our right to consume what they make. If they choose to make something else, it's then up to us choose whether to continue to consume it. That's it. Destiny is their property to do whatever they want with. It might be partly, key word partly, art and culture but it's still THEIR property. You can buy a piece art and preserve it. But you can't buy a Disc of of Destiny and presume to alter or change it. There is a reason why there are user agreements for software.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by cheapLEY @, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 10:27 (329 days ago) @ Cody Miller

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?


For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.


So I guess you are cool with not having an official HD version of the Original Star Wars Trilogy. It's Lucas' right after all.

Honestly? Yes, I’m fine with that. I think it’s sheer idiocy to suggest otherwise. If I paint a masterpiece, put it in galleries all over the world and everyone falls in love with it, it’s still my painting, and I’ll draw little squiggly mustaches all over it if I want to. George Lucas doesn’t owe the world a fucking thing.

Do I wish we had an HD version of the original cut? Sure. But I didn’t make the goddamn movie, so that’s not my choice.

Do I wish I could go play Destiny with Dinklebot? Absolutely! But again, that’s not my choice, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.

Avatar

7777% agree with this.

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 10:34 (329 days ago) @ cheapLEY

- No text -

Avatar

Yep.

by breitzen @, Kansas, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 12:55 (328 days ago) @ cheapLEY

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?


For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.


So I guess you are cool with not having an official HD version of the Original Star Wars Trilogy. It's Lucas' right after all.


Honestly? Yes, I’m fine with that. I think it’s sheer idiocy to suggest otherwise. If I paint a masterpiece, put it in galleries all over the world and everyone falls in love with it, it’s still my painting, and I’ll draw little squiggly mustaches all over it if I want to. George Lucas doesn’t owe the world a fucking thing.

Do I wish we had an HD version of the original cut? Sure. But I didn’t make the goddamn movie, so that’s not my choice.

Do I wish I could go play Destiny with Dinklebot? Absolutely! But again, that’s not my choice, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.

The idea that art is somehow the audience’s is absurd unless the artist explicitly states it. An audience is free to interpret, enjoy, hate, etc. art, but it’s not theirs to own. It’s not theirs to dictate how it should be viewed or used.

Avatar

Yep.

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 13:04 (328 days ago) @ breitzen
edited by Cody Miller, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 13:07

The idea that art is somehow the audience’s is absurd unless the artist explicitly states it. An audience is free to interpret, enjoy, hate, etc. art, but it’s not theirs to own. It’s not theirs to dictate how it should be viewed or used.

I disagree. At some point the art becomes a part of the society and culture. At that point it belongs to everyone.

That's even codified into copyright law: you get a period of exclusivity, then it belongs to the public.

Avatar

Yep.

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 13:08 (328 days ago) @ Cody Miller

The idea that art is somehow the audience’s is absurd unless the artist explicitly states it. An audience is free to interpret, enjoy, hate, etc. art, but it’s not theirs to own. It’s not theirs to dictate how it should be viewed or used.


I disagree. At some point the art becomes a part of the society and culture. At that point it belongs to everyone.

So when does a game belong to society and culture instead of the creator?

Um... no.

by Claude Errera @, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 13:31 (328 days ago) @ Cody Miller

The idea that art is somehow the audience’s is absurd unless the artist explicitly states it. An audience is free to interpret, enjoy, hate, etc. art, but it’s not theirs to own. It’s not theirs to dictate how it should be viewed or used.


I disagree. At some point the art becomes a part of the society and culture. At that point it belongs to everyone.

That's even codified into copyright law: you get a period of exclusivity, then it belongs to the public.

It doesn't 'belong' to the public - when a copyright runs out, the public is allowed to USE it. That's a completely different thing.

Art belongs to the creator. If you take someone else's art, and you make something new with it, you've now created something yourself... and that belongs to you. But the original? That still 'belongs' to the creator.

Avatar

Um... no.

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 14:00 (328 days ago) @ Claude Errera
edited by Cody Miller, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 14:03

The idea that art is somehow the audience’s is absurd unless the artist explicitly states it. An audience is free to interpret, enjoy, hate, etc. art, but it’s not theirs to own. It’s not theirs to dictate how it should be viewed or used.


I disagree. At some point the art becomes a part of the society and culture. At that point it belongs to everyone.

That's even codified into copyright law: you get a period of exclusivity, then it belongs to the public.


It doesn't 'belong' to the public - when a copyright runs out, the public is allowed to USE it. That's a completely different thing.

Art belongs to the creator. If you take someone else's art, and you make something new with it, you've now created something yourself... and that belongs to you. But the original? That still 'belongs' to the creator.

I don't see how it is completely different. When something is public domain you can:

1. Copy and distribute it at will
2. Modify it
3. Use its elements in something new

How is that functionally different than it 'belonging' to the artist? It's pragmatically the same thing.

Also P.S. art virtually never 'belongs' to its creator in this day and age. Ask JJ Abrams if he owns Force Awakens or if Disney does. Also who does a work 'belong' to when hundreds of people worked on it?

Authorship and ownership are not equivalent.

Avatar

Um... no.

by ManKitten ⌂, The Stugotz is strong in me., Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 14:35 (328 days ago) @ Cody Miller
edited by ManKitten, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 14:39

The idea that art is somehow the audience’s is absurd unless the artist explicitly states it. An audience is free to interpret, enjoy, hate, etc. art, but it’s not theirs to own. It’s not theirs to dictate how it should be viewed or used.


I disagree. At some point the art becomes a part of the society and culture. At that point it belongs to everyone.

That's even codified into copyright law: you get a period of exclusivity, then it belongs to the public.


It doesn't 'belong' to the public - when a copyright runs out, the public is allowed to USE it. That's a completely different thing.

Art belongs to the creator. If you take someone else's art, and you make something new with it, you've now created something yourself... and that belongs to you. But the original? That still 'belongs' to the creator.


I don't see how it is completely different. When something is public domain you can:

1. Copy and distribute it at will
2. Modify it
3. Use its elements in something new

How is that functionally different than it 'belonging' to the artist? It's pragmatically the same thing.

Also P.S. art virtually never 'belongs' to its creator in this day and age. Ask JJ Abrams if he owns Force Awakens or if Disney does. Also who does a work 'belong' to when hundreds of people worked on it?

Authorship and ownership are not equivalent.


I think for this specific argument you are confusing art for artistic. What is art? Well, that's the most subjective conversation you can have. Why is art? I think there is less grey area in that conversation.

In my opinion "Art" is created solely to exist. That's the only purpose of "Art".
While Destiny (and video games in general) can be artistic, their purpose is for mass production, public distribution, and profit.

Disclaimer, this is not say that things can't cross over...but like I said...for this specific argument...you're getting hung up on technicalities.

Self Edit: After thinking about what I just typed, most of the classical pieces of art were commissioned so...who the heck knows.

Avatar

Um... no.

by slycrel ⌂, Sunday, January 20, 2019, 10:53 (324 days ago) @ Claude Errera

Gotta disagree on this one.

People don't get to own ideas. Even when they are "implementations" of ideas, like a specific painting, story, game, whatever. As a people, we need to reward the effort of generating ideas that move people forward, which is where patent and copyright laws come in. But the narrative is so twisted nowadays where we talk about people "owning" software, algorithms, specific implementations of ideas... because that's how many make their living. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that that is what is.

We can't forget that enforcing this is something that we, as a society, have decided. It doesn't mean it's how it has to be done... but that's how it is right now.

Cody has in the past done things like collect audio for preservation purposes. He's in that same line of thinking here -- preserving the ideas (or, specifically "art") that is within the space of Destiny. On the flip side, Bungie definitely shouldn't be required to release a disc or make that easy... As a society, we potentially lose in the long run for making an experience or game like Destiny basically disposable and unknowable over a longer period of time.

Big deal? To some. Probably not for many more. As has been mentioned here, one persons trash is another's treasure (see: commissioned art and the thoughts around certain artists in their own time). Who knows if Destiny will be forgotten in the years to come or if it's pivotal to video game history...? There is a bigger picture at work here than just "I play games, Bungie makes them. So what?"

Also apples and oranges. heh.

Avatar

Yep.

by cheapLEY @, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 14:22 (328 days ago) @ breitzen

The other side is that even framing this as about art muddies the waters. I bought an entertainment product, but that product has changed and become something other than the thing I explicitly purchased.

When George Lucas made the newest cut of Star Wars, he didn’t come to your house and swap your old copy for the new one. Bungie, on the other hand, totally did.

Let be clear that I totally don’t give a shit that they did, but it is something worth discussing. I think preservation is sort of a silly goal just for its own sake. The Mona Lisa could be destroyed tomorrow, and while that would be unfortunate based purely on principle, the world wouldn’t be any poorer for it—it’s been so thoroughly documented at this point, that it wouldn’t really matter that the original is gone.

Cody’s own efforts to record every Dinklebot line mean that even though you can’t play the game in that state, that work still persists in the world.

Avatar

Yep.

by Harmanimus @, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 16:17 (328 days ago) @ cheapLEY

But a living game is less like buying a movie and more like buying a pass to an amusement park. Bungie didn’t change anything “at your home” they just changed the details of where you go for leisure. I don’t think the SW example fits either side of the argument very well. But I do think this brings up an interesting point regarding the separation of production and consumption in the scheme of things. It highlights a difference in the location of the identoty of a thing.

Avatar

Yep.

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 06:53 (328 days ago) @ Harmanimus

But a living game is less like buying a movie and more like buying a pass to an amusement park. Bungie didn’t change anything “at your home” they just changed the details of where you go for leisure. I don’t think the SW example fits either side of the argument very well. But I do think this brings up an interesting point regarding the separation of production and consumption in the scheme of things. It highlights a difference in the location of the identoty of a thing.

Amusement park is a great example. People think they own software because they have a copy of it. A disc is just a ticket to use the software. a digital code is just access to the amusement park. There is art in the making of an amusement park too, but it's meant to amuse the user. If the owner of the park decides to change it and hires engineers to tear down a section and make something new, does that mean that we as the customers are required to preserve it? I mean, no in my opinion. We don't own it.

Avatar

Yep.

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 07:39 (328 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

But a living game is less like buying a movie and more like buying a pass to an amusement park. Bungie didn’t change anything “at your home” they just changed the details of where you go for leisure. I don’t think the SW example fits either side of the argument very well. But I do think this brings up an interesting point regarding the separation of production and consumption in the scheme of things. It highlights a difference in the location of the identoty of a thing.


Amusement park is a great example. People think they own software because they have a copy of it. A disc is just a ticket to use the software. a digital code is just access to the amusement park. There is art in the making of an amusement park too, but it's meant to amuse the user. If the owner of the park decides to change it and hires engineers to tear down a section and make something new, does that mean that we as the customers are required to preserve it? I mean, no in my opinion. We don't own it.

For the sake of this comparison, let's redefine amusement parks. Let's say that they have traditionally been prefab affairs that you install in your backyard for you and your family to enjoy. Do the people who designed it and sold it to you have the right to change it from it's original state or otherwise render it unusable? Maybe--I mean, yes, that's what all those legal disclaimers we agree to are about. That said, it's reasonable to expect that some people aren't going to like this. Consumers usual expectations about games they "own" aren't being met. It's also reasonable for historians to want to preserve in some fashion examples from previous points in time.

Avatar

Yep.

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 08:16 (328 days ago) @ Kermit

But a living game is less like buying a movie and more like buying a pass to an amusement park. Bungie didn’t change anything “at your home” they just changed the details of where you go for leisure. I don’t think the SW example fits either side of the argument very well. But I do think this brings up an interesting point regarding the separation of production and consumption in the scheme of things. It highlights a difference in the location of the identoty of a thing.


Amusement park is a great example. People think they own software because they have a copy of it. A disc is just a ticket to use the software. a digital code is just access to the amusement park. There is art in the making of an amusement park too, but it's meant to amuse the user. If the owner of the park decides to change it and hires engineers to tear down a section and make something new, does that mean that we as the customers are required to preserve it? I mean, no in my opinion. We don't own it.


For the sake of this comparison, let's redefine amusement parks. Let's say that they have traditionally been prefab affairs that you install in your backyard for you and your family to enjoy. Do the people who designed it and sold it to you have the right to change it from it's original state or otherwise render it unusable? Maybe--I mean, yes, that's what all those legal disclaimers we agree to are about. That said, it's reasonable to expect that some people aren't going to like this. Consumers usual expectations about games they "own" aren't being met. It's also reasonable for historians to want to preserve in some fashion examples from previous points in time.

I get where you are going with this, but at the same time I feel like this is an idea that you are trying to hold on to but isn't reasonable. This might be possible for a small subset of games, especially older games where digital upgrades weren't possible. But that is rarely true in modern games and especially a live game like Destiny.

I speak on this as both a gamer and a software engineer. It's easy to say that we should preserve art when talking about games because that is something you can latch onto as something that is felt very personally. But art is a small part of what a game is. Games are software. Which means, logic, which means bugs. There is so much of a game that is encompassed when you say that you think a game should be preserved in a certain state at a given time.

You as a gamer look at how it played, felt, what content there was, even the bugs that affected it. That is a memory for you that felt good, and you want to keep it in that state. I can totally get behind this as a gamer. If I could have snapshots of and play certain parts of Destiny in it's history, that would be fun.

However, I am also a software engineer who understands that It's not so simple as keeping your Destiny 2 disc so you can keep playing it as it was and if you can't it's Bungie's fault for not allowing you to do this. Destiny as a game is dependent on so many things. The Xbox hardware, the Xbox Operating system, or Bungie's servers to name just a small amount. All of these things change and render parts of Destiny code obsolete or dysfunctional. This is the realization of software and thus digital games now. I can understand the want to make modern games like old school games where you had a set piece of hardware and a disc or cartridge and things never change from that. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect a studio to do that.

I wanted to also talk about fixing bugs and upgrading content as a natural need for developers, but I'm all debated out. I'm sure it will come up later.

Avatar

Yep.

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 08:58 (328 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

But a living game is less like buying a movie and more like buying a pass to an amusement park. Bungie didn’t change anything “at your home” they just changed the details of where you go for leisure. I don’t think the SW example fits either side of the argument very well. But I do think this brings up an interesting point regarding the separation of production and consumption in the scheme of things. It highlights a difference in the location of the identoty of a thing.


Amusement park is a great example. People think they own software because they have a copy of it. A disc is just a ticket to use the software. a digital code is just access to the amusement park. There is art in the making of an amusement park too, but it's meant to amuse the user. If the owner of the park decides to change it and hires engineers to tear down a section and make something new, does that mean that we as the customers are required to preserve it? I mean, no in my opinion. We don't own it.


For the sake of this comparison, let's redefine amusement parks. Let's say that they have traditionally been prefab affairs that you install in your backyard for you and your family to enjoy. Do the people who designed it and sold it to you have the right to change it from it's original state or otherwise render it unusable? Maybe--I mean, yes, that's what all those legal disclaimers we agree to are about. That said, it's reasonable to expect that some people aren't going to like this. Consumers usual expectations about games they "own" aren't being met. It's also reasonable for historians to want to preserve in some fashion examples from previous points in time.


I get where you are going with this, but at the same time I feel like this is an idea that you are trying to hold on to but isn't reasonable. This might be possible for a small subset of games, especially older games where digital upgrades weren't possible. But that is rarely true in modern games and especially a live game like Destiny.

I speak on this as both a gamer and a software engineer. It's easy to say that we should preserve art when talking about games because that is something you can latch onto as something that is felt very personally. But art is a small part of what a game is. Games are software. Which means, logic, which means bugs. There is so much of a game that is encompassed when you say that you think a game should be preserved in a certain state at a given time.

You as a gamer look at how it played, felt, what content there was, even the bugs that affected it. That is a memory for you that felt good, and you want to keep it in that state. I can totally get behind this as a gamer. If I could have snapshots of and play certain parts of Destiny in it's history, that would be fun.

However, I am also a software engineer who understands that It's not so simple as keeping your Destiny 2 disc so you can keep playing it as it was and if you can't it's Bungie's fault for not allowing you to do this. Destiny as a game is dependent on so many things. The Xbox hardware, the Xbox Operating system, or Bungie's servers to name just a small amount. All of these things change and render parts of Destiny code obsolete or dysfunctional. This is the realization of software and thus digital games now. I can understand the want to make modern games like old school games where you had a set piece of hardware and a disc or cartridge and things never change from that. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect a studio to do that.

I wanted to also talk about fixing bugs and upgrading content as a natural need for developers, but I'm all debated out. I'm sure it will come up later.

I get the software perspective--I really do. (I've worked for a software company for 20 years.) You seem to get the gamer perspective too, so there's that. I also don't think what Cody wants is feasible, but it's okay to wish for it, but with the right incentives, developers can respond and provide some semblance of what Cody wants (cf. Halo).

Avatar

Yep.

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 09:24 (328 days ago) @ Kermit

I get the software perspective--I really do. (I've worked for a software company for 20 years.) You seem to get the gamer perspective too, so there's that. I also don't think what Cody wants is feasible, but it's okay to wish for it, but with the right incentives, developers can respond and provide some semblance of what Cody wants (cf. Halo).

I mean, this all started with Cody, and I read his comment as we as consumers have a right to preserve the game regardless of what Bungie does. That's not a dream, that's closer to a demand :) Thus my reaction. I would also call the MCC a recreation of history not a preservation of it. But then again, I don't know what the code looks like.

Avatar

Yep.

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 13:01 (327 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

I get the software perspective--I really do. (I've worked for a software company for 20 years.) You seem to get the gamer perspective too, so there's that. I also don't think what Cody wants is feasible, but it's okay to wish for it, but with the right incentives, developers can respond and provide some semblance of what Cody wants (cf. Halo).


I mean, this all started with Cody, and I read his comment as we as consumers have a right to preserve the game regardless of what Bungie does. That's not a dream, that's closer to a demand :) Thus my reaction. I would also call the MCC a recreation of history not a preservation of it. But then again, I don't know what the code looks like.

That's why I said "some semblance." :) I'm pretty sure that authentic legacy Halo code in there, though. Ask kornman00.

Avatar

Yep.

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 13:46 (327 days ago) @ Kermit

I also don't think what Cody wants is feasible, but it's okay to wish for it, but with the right incentives, developers can respond and provide some semblance of what Cody wants (cf. Halo).

I'm not asking for the developers to do anything. Most preservation efforts are community driven.

Avatar

Yep.

by Ragashingo ⌂ @, Official DBO Cryptarch, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 14:40 (327 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Someone is going to reverse engineer Destiny's server component from scratch? Has that ever happened before with other online games? Ones as complex as Destiny? I thought it was more like code leaked and let people build upon an old version of a game's server or a sympathetic individual developer would give some mod team an unauthorized copy of the server software.

Honestly, I think this whole Music of the Spheres drip drip drip leaking Marty and his army did has set a bad example. I'd fully support Bungie helping players preserve Destiny's past. I'm fully against any of those other methods where the software is obtained through less than legitimate means.

And yeah, maybe that means Destiny is lost to time and a million hours of YouTube videos. So be it, I say.

Avatar

Yep.

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 14:52 (327 days ago) @ Ragashingo

Someone is going to reverse engineer Destiny's server component from scratch? Has that ever happened before with other online games? Ones as complex as Destiny?

Yes it has.

Honestly, I think this whole Music of the Spheres drip drip drip leaking Marty and his army did has set a bad example.

Marty had nothing to do with the MotS leak.

Avatar

Yep.

by Ragashingo ⌂ @, Official DBO Cryptarch, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 15:11 (327 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Someone is going to reverse engineer Destiny's server component from scratch? Has that ever happened before with other online games? Ones as complex as Destiny?


Yes it has.

I don't keep close track of this kind of thing. Got any examples?

Honestly, I think this whole Music of the Spheres drip drip drip leaking Marty and his army did has set a bad example.


Marty had nothing to do with the MotS leak.

Other than at least encouraging it and promoting it once it leaked, sure. He certainly didn't oppose it even given an official release was forthcoming.

Avatar

Yep.

by cheapLEY @, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 15:36 (327 days ago) @ Ragashingo

Other than at least encouraging it and promoting it once it leaked, sure. He certainly didn't oppose it even given an official release was forthcoming.

Should he have? He made a masterpiece and clearly wanted it to see the light of day. He has no responsibility to Bungie to keep fans from digging into it. I’m glad it got leaked, and I honestly don’t think it sets any negative precedent. Things leak all the time already. This isn’t some crazy new situation.

Avatar

MotS

by Ragashingo ⌂ @, Official DBO Cryptarch, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 16:20 (327 days ago) @ cheapLEY

Other than at least encouraging it and promoting it once it leaked, sure. He certainly didn't oppose it even given an official release was forthcoming.


Should he have? He made a masterpiece and clearly wanted it to see the light of day. He has no responsibility to Bungie to keep fans from digging into it. I’m glad it got leaked, and I honestly don’t think it sets any negative precedent. Things leak all the time already. This isn’t some crazy new situation.

The whole situation is, of course, both complicated and probably deeply unfair. But, at the end of the day, I don't like the leaking of artistic works because I do think we should encourage artists by paying them for their effort. Theft is a weird, complicated concept in the digital age, but my thought is that Marty did not need to care / could afford it if the album he was not going to see any further payment from was suddenly available on the internet. But is that true of everyone? It's ok to leak Music of the Spheres, but would it be ok to encourage the leak and distribution of the music my buddy's band has made? When maybe it would actually hurt them financially?

What I wish Bungie had done was release Music of the Sphere for free as a token of good will and as a means to move past... the past. Instead, it felt to me like Bungie held onto it out of spite then released it when that was no longer viable, but also that the leak had some bad feelings / motives buried in there too. And I don't like any of that from either of these two sides that I never really ever imagined would ever be separate sides...

A joint release or even just a release and an affirming nod from Marty would have made me happy.

A leak and immediate linking to it by Marty and separately an official paid release by Bungie years and years after the music was finished made me sad.

Avatar

MotS

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 11:04 (327 days ago) @ Ragashingo

The whole situation is, of course, both complicated and probably deeply unfair. But, at the end of the day, I don't like the leaking of artistic works because I do think we should encourage artists by paying them for their effort.

Hey dude, Marty got paid already for MotS.

It's ok to leak Music of the Spheres, but would it be ok to encourage the leak and distribution of the music my buddy's band has made?

If the band wanted the music out there, but the record company was sitting on it unwilling to release it then absolutely. It would be ethically wrong, but morally right.

A joint release or even just a release and an affirming nod from Marty would have made me happy.

Too bad he found out from the press release like everybody else.

A leak and immediate linking to it by Marty and separately an official paid release by Bungie years and years after the music was finished made me sad.

It made us all sad.

Avatar

MotS

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 11:51 (327 days ago) @ Cody Miller

It's ok to leak Music of the Spheres, but would it be ok to encourage the leak and distribution of the music my buddy's band has made?


If the band wanted the music out there, but the record company was sitting on it unwilling to release it then absolutely. It would be ethically wrong, but morally right.

Wait, wait, wait. So if, as a software engineer, I have written code for my company and they decide not to sell it for profit, then I'm morally obligated to steal it and distribute it to the world?

Music or code, it's all intellectual property that is not owned by the employee but the company. Employee's get paid by their company to do a service for them, they don't own what they make. In my mind that both Ethically and morally wrong to steal from your company. Morals are defined by an individual and I wasn't raised that way.

Use art for example, If I'm an artist and someone commissions me to paint something for them and I do it. Turns out it's some amazing piece of art. That person then hides it in a room in their house for them to enjoy. Is it still morally my obligation to make sure everyone gets to see it? No. It might have been made by me, but I don't own the artwork.

Avatar

MotS

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 12:07 (327 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV
edited by Cody Miller, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 12:11

It's ok to leak Music of the Spheres, but would it be ok to encourage the leak and distribution of the music my buddy's band has made?


If the band wanted the music out there, but the record company was sitting on it unwilling to release it then absolutely. It would be ethically wrong, but morally right.


Wait, wait, wait. So if, as a software engineer, I have written code for my company and they decide not to sell it for profit, then I'm morally obligated to steal it and distribute it to the world?

Music or code, it's all intellectual property that is not owned by the employee but the company. Employee's get paid by their company to do a service for them, they don't own what they make. In my mind that both Ethically and morally wrong to steal from your company. Morals are defined by an individual and I wasn't raised that way.

Use art for example, If I'm an artist and someone commissions me to paint something for them and I do it. Turns out it's some amazing piece of art. That person then hides it in a room in their house for them to enjoy. Is it still morally my obligation to make sure everyone gets to see it? No. It might have been made by me, but I don't own the artwork.

Not the same. You deprive them of it in that example. For music, movies, games etc, you can copy them because they are digital. Bungie still has exactly what they had before mots was released.

And under certain circumstances, I think theft is justified. Probably not for art, but what if someone had patented intellectual property to cure cancer but was sitting on it? I say steal it.

Not that I’m a fan of Wu Tang, but if somebody stole their album from martin shkreli and copied it I think it would have been a net positive.

Avatar

MotS

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 12:25 (326 days ago) @ Cody Miller

It's ok to leak Music of the Spheres, but would it be ok to encourage the leak and distribution of the music my buddy's band has made?


If the band wanted the music out there, but the record company was sitting on it unwilling to release it then absolutely. It would be ethically wrong, but morally right.


Wait, wait, wait. So if, as a software engineer, I have written code for my company and they decide not to sell it for profit, then I'm morally obligated to steal it and distribute it to the world?

Music or code, it's all intellectual property that is not owned by the employee but the company. Employee's get paid by their company to do a service for them, they don't own what they make. In my mind that both Ethically and morally wrong to steal from your company. Morals are defined by an individual and I wasn't raised that way.

Use art for example, If I'm an artist and someone commissions me to paint something for them and I do it. Turns out it's some amazing piece of art. That person then hides it in a room in their house for them to enjoy. Is it still morally my obligation to make sure everyone gets to see it? No. It might have been made by me, but I don't own the artwork.


Not the same. You deprive them of it in that example. For music, movies, games etc, you can copy them because they are digital.

So stealing from my employer in my software engineer example is justified?

Bungie still has exactly what they had before mots was released.

Except the right to distribute/sell it in the future however they see fit. Which, I might add is their right as the owner of it. And the value of it is drastically lowered as soon as it's released into the wild by someone else.

And under certain circumstances, I think theft is justified.

And who decides it's justified? hmmm? you? That sounds like Chaos to me.

Probably not for art, but what if someone had patented intellectual property to cure cancer but was sitting on it? I say steal it.

I'm pretty sure that is covered by a law somewhere. That would essentially be a crime against humanity, so that doesn't exactly play when we are talking about art and games.

Not that I’m a fan of Wu Tang, but if somebody stole their album from martin shkreli and copied it I think it would have been a net positive.

I have no idea what that means :D

Basically, I feel like you are asking people to break laws based on someones, we don't know who's, ideas of morality.

Avatar

MotS

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 13:32 (326 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

That is the whole point. Not all laws are just. And in certain circumstances just laws can end up being unjust.

MotS

by EffortlessFury @, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 14:12 (326 days ago) @ Cody Miller

That is the whole point. Not all laws are just. And in certain circumstances just laws can end up being unjust.

Yeah, this. The law is not morality; ideally it reflects the morality of society but it rarely, if ever has in the history of the world.

Context matters. I mean, there's a difference between a cut level of game and a fully mastered and complete suite of music that people want to hear. The only thing Bungie had to lose by releasing it was pride and that's not while the law doesn't recognize morals specifically, I feel that the law protected the wrong party in this circumstance.

Avatar

MotS

by Xenos @, Shores of Time, Friday, January 18, 2019, 08:48 (326 days ago) @ EffortlessFury

Yeah, this. The law is not morality; ideally it reflects the morality of society but it rarely, if ever has in the history of the world.

I'm just not sure I see the moral ground here. "We want X!" Is not a moral stand-point. Marty agreed to make music for a Bungie project NOT for his own use. Bungie decided to not release that music. What MORALLY requires Bungie to release it? And since it was made for them what makes it morally right for someone else to release it without their permission? This is all about wants and desires not needs. Even the example that Cody used about Wu Tang and Shkreli. No matter how much you think Shkreli is a terrible person he has no moral obligation to release something he bought to the public. Him being a terrible person does not make it right to steal from him. Very few moral philosophers have ever said that two wrongs make a right.

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by EffortlessFury @, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 14:08 (326 days ago) @ Ragashingo

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 14:45 (326 days ago) @ EffortlessFury

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.

Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by EffortlessFury @, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 16:38 (326 days ago) @ Cody Miller

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p

Because Marty doesn't already have the lossless masters :P

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 18:44 (326 days ago) @ EffortlessFury

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Because Marty doesn't already have the lossless masters :P

UH, he had to give everything back to Bungie when he left… he didn't have any copies of MotS.

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by EffortlessFury @, Friday, January 18, 2019, 02:31 (326 days ago) @ Cody Miller

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Because Marty doesn't already have the lossless masters :P


UH, he had to give everything back to Bungie when he left… he didn't have any copies of MotS.

Well, the pre-order for this set came with lossless digital copies, so I'm sure he has them now.

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Robot Chickens, Friday, January 18, 2019, 00:21 (326 days ago) @ Cody Miller
edited by Robot Chickens, Friday, January 18, 2019, 00:33

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p

Isn't vinyl technically a lossless format? I agree with your overall point, but that vinyl release has some sweet art!

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Friday, January 18, 2019, 08:12 (326 days ago) @ Robot Chickens

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Isn't vinyl technically a lossless format? I agree with your overall point, but that vinyl release has some sweet art!

Yeah, there may be some loss of information compared to the original recorded digital source due to some technical limitations of the hardware, but that is not due to algorithmic compression, which is what "lossy" refers to. Also, depending on the equipment (playing back the digital source or the vinyl), that loss might be minimal or indiscernible.

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Friday, January 18, 2019, 10:15 (326 days ago) @ Kermit

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Isn't vinyl technically a lossless format? I agree with your overall point, but that vinyl release has some sweet art!


Yeah, there may be some loss of information compared to the original recorded digital source due to some technical limitations of the hardware, but that is not due to algorithmic compression, which is what "lossy" refers to. Also, depending on the equipment (playing back the digital source or the vinyl), that loss might be minimal or indiscernible.

Given that a CD can have 20 to 60 more dB of dynamic range than the vinyl depending on how it’s made, I’d say that would be perceptible in many cases as well as having a higher noise floor.

44.1khz LPCM is truly lossless for the range of human hearing.

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Friday, January 18, 2019, 08:57 (326 days ago) @ Robot Chickens

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Isn't vinyl technically a lossless format? I agree with your overall point, but that vinyl release has some sweet art!

Vinyl is not lossless AT ALL. There is analog noise / distortion and a loss of dynamic range. You can take a redbook audio file, copy it a bazillion Times, and still be able to perfectly access the original waveform as recorded.

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Friday, January 18, 2019, 10:30 (326 days ago) @ Cody Miller

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Isn't vinyl technically a lossless format? I agree with your overall point, but that vinyl release has some sweet art!


Vinyl is not lossless AT ALL. There is analog noise / distortion and a loss of dynamic range. You can take a redbook audio file, copy it a bazillion Times, and still be able to perfectly access the original waveform as recorded.

The phrase "perfectly access" is problematic because the equipment you use matters. On the cheap, digital sounds "better" by most measures, but arguably not all. There's a subjective aspect. Vinyl and digital sound different. On the high end, digital can sound more like vinyl and they can be less distinguishable, but you also have to consider how the recording was made and mastered. You can claim digital supremacy based on specs but the quality of the listening experience can't always be quantified that way.

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Friday, January 18, 2019, 10:48 (326 days ago) @ Kermit

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Isn't vinyl technically a lossless format? I agree with your overall point, but that vinyl release has some sweet art!


Vinyl is not lossless AT ALL. There is analog noise / distortion and a loss of dynamic range. You can take a redbook audio file, copy it a bazillion Times, and still be able to perfectly access the original waveform as recorded.


The phrase "perfectly access" is problematic because the equipment you use matters. On the cheap, digital sounds "better" by most measures, but arguably not all. There's a subjective aspect. Vinyl and digital sound different. On the high end, digital can sound more like vinyl and they can be less distinguishable, but you also have to consider how the recording was made and mastered. You can claim digital supremacy based on specs but the quality of the listening experience can't always be quantified that way.

Yes, all true.

The recording can be poorly mastered as per the 'loudness wars' and will sound bad. Likewise, some people prefer the imperfections of vinyl. But they are imperfections. They can be replicated because we know why and how they happen.

Avatar

Vinyl

by Ragashingo ⌂ @, Official DBO Cryptarch, Friday, January 18, 2019, 10:53 (326 days ago) @ Kermit
edited by Ragashingo, Friday, January 18, 2019, 11:01

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Isn't vinyl technically a lossless format? I agree with your overall point, but that vinyl release has some sweet art!


Vinyl is not lossless AT ALL. There is analog noise / distortion and a loss of dynamic range. You can take a redbook audio file, copy it a bazillion Times, and still be able to perfectly access the original waveform as recorded.


The phrase "perfectly access" is problematic because the equipment you use matters. On the cheap, digital sounds "better" by most measures, but arguably not all. There's a subjective aspect. Vinyl and digital sound different. On the high end, digital can sound more like vinyl and they can be less distinguishable, but you also have to consider how the recording was made and mastered. You can claim digital supremacy based on specs but the quality of the listening experience can't always be quantified that way.

Meh. To me, this is crossing definitions.

On a technical level we have gotten so much better about recording music. We capture more of it and we can reproduce what we captured perfectly. Obviously, playing a digital recording on a $5 pair of speakers results in a different sound than playing it in a perfectly tuned concert hall, but the same is true of analog recordings. With digital, every sound that was made originally is contained in the digital file.

With analog, the very end medium the audio is recorded on degrades. What you heard 20 years ago is not the same as what the same record or tape will get you today. And there were various level of quality loss getting it from the original instruments to tapes to the those end vinyl records.

Listening experience of digital vs vinyl is also a strange comparison. I will not buy any modern music on vinyl because stamping those tracks to a physical analog medium is inherently changing the sound of the music. You aren't getting Music of the Spheres when you put it in your record player. You're getting Music of the Spheres + vinyl distortion. For old stuff, stuff that was recorded before the digital age, people say it has a different feel, but I often find they mean that they have simply grown use to the pops and hisses and other sounds that were not original part of the music.

To me, the slight speed up and slow down of a cassette tape or the distortion and pops that come with a record are imperfections that should not exist at all in modern recordings and would not have existed in classic recordings if they had the technology we have now. It is my opinion that anything else, any talk of subjectives like listening experience or richness or warmth comes from nostalgia and not from the physical reality of known specifications and facts.

Avatar

Vinyl

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Friday, January 18, 2019, 12:11 (326 days ago) @ Ragashingo

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Isn't vinyl technically a lossless format? I agree with your overall point, but that vinyl release has some sweet art!


Vinyl is not lossless AT ALL. There is analog noise / distortion and a loss of dynamic range. You can take a redbook audio file, copy it a bazillion Times, and still be able to perfectly access the original waveform as recorded.


The phrase "perfectly access" is problematic because the equipment you use matters. On the cheap, digital sounds "better" by most measures, but arguably not all. There's a subjective aspect. Vinyl and digital sound different. On the high end, digital can sound more like vinyl and they can be less distinguishable, but you also have to consider how the recording was made and mastered. You can claim digital supremacy based on specs but the quality of the listening experience can't always be quantified that way.


Meh. To me, this is crossing definitions.

On a technical level we have gotten so much better about recording music. We capture more of it and we can reproduce what we captured perfectly. Obviously, playing a digital recording on a $5 pair of speakers results in a different sound than playing it in a perfectly tuned concert hall, but the same is true of analog recordings. With digital, every sound that was made originally is contained in the digital file.

It should be said that most of the ~1,000 vinyl records I own were pressed before full digital recordings were common.

With analog, the very end medium the audio is recorded on degrades. What you heard 20 years ago is not the same as what the same record or tape will get you today. And there were various level of quality loss getting it from the original instruments to tapes to the those end vinyl records.

Listening experience of digital vs vinyl is also a strange comparison. I will not buy any modern music on vinyl because stamping those tracks to a physical analog medium is inherently changing the sound of the music. You aren't getting Music of the Spheres when you put it in your record player. You're getting Music of the Spheres + vinyl distortion. For old stuff, stuff that was recorded before the digital age, people say it has a different feel, but I often find they mean that they have simply grown use to the pops and hisses and other sounds that were not original part of the music.

To me, the slight speed up and slow down of a cassette tape or the distortion and pops that come with a record are imperfections that should not exist at all in modern recordings and would not have existed in classic recordings if they had the technology we have now. It is my opinion that anything else, any talk of subjectives like listening experience or richness or warmth comes from nostalgia and not from the physical reality of known specifications and facts.


I don't know, man. Millions of 20-something hipsters can't be wrong.

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Robot Chickens, Friday, January 18, 2019, 11:01 (326 days ago) @ Cody Miller

...Mike sent Marty a physical copy of the retail release numbered #001. So there's at least that.


Wasn't that on Vinyl? It's a lossy format and doesn't preserve all of the original :-p


Isn't vinyl technically a lossless format? I agree with your overall point, but that vinyl release has some sweet art!

There is analog noise / distortion and a loss of dynamic range.

This is 100% true

You can take a redbook audio file, copy it a bazillion Times, and still be able to perfectly access the original waveform as recorded.

The ability to copy a million times is mostly irrelevant because we're talking about one transfer to the end user. Also, perfectly accessing the original waveform is conditional. It depends on if the original was recorded on magnetic tape and then converted etc.

Vinyl is not lossless AT ALL.

Trust me, I think digital is the superior format for a myriad of reasons. I know that Vinyl playback has all those things you mentioned, I'm just not sure that word is used the way you are using it. If it were, all changes in medium would be lossy.

Avatar

If it makes you feel any better about the situation...

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Friday, January 18, 2019, 11:18 (326 days ago) @ Robot Chickens

The ability to copy a million times is mostly irrelevant because we're talking about one transfer to the end user. Also, perfectly accessing the original waveform is conditional. It depends on if the original was recorded on magnetic tape and then converted etc.

Nope. A digitally recorded signal onto a hard drive for example actually would better represent the original waveform than a tape. The idea that digital sampling creates jagged or stairstep waveforms is false. It comes back perfectly smooth up to the nyquist frequency.

Avatar

Yep.

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Monday, February 04, 2019, 16:11 (308 days ago) @ Ragashingo

Someone is going to reverse engineer Destiny's server component from scratch? Has that ever happened before with other online games? Ones as complex as Destiny?


Yes it has.


I don't keep close track of this kind of thing. Got any examples?

Honestly, I think this whole Music of the Spheres drip drip drip leaking Marty and his army did has set a bad example.


Marty had nothing to do with the MotS leak.


Other than at least encouraging it and promoting it once it leaked, sure. He certainly didn't oppose it even given an official release was forthcoming.

The official release was announced months after the leak, delivered a year later, and possibly would never have even happened had it not been for it getting out.

Avatar

I'm with Cody on this.

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 15:42 (328 days ago) @ cheapLEY

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?


For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.


So I guess you are cool with not having an official HD version of the Original Star Wars Trilogy. It's Lucas' right after all.


Honestly? Yes, I’m fine with that. I think it’s sheer idiocy to suggest otherwise. If I paint a masterpiece, put it in galleries all over the world and everyone falls in love with it, it’s still my painting, and I’ll draw little squiggly mustaches all over it if I want to. George Lucas doesn’t owe the world a fucking thing.

Do I wish we had an HD version of the original cut? Sure. But I didn’t make the goddamn movie, so that’s not my choice.

Do I wish I could go play Destiny with Dinklebot? Absolutely! But again, that’s not my choice, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.

Art is part of culture, and the bigger impact it has on the culture the more important it is. Whether you call it art or culture it's important historically to preserve Star Wars in its original form.

Everything can't be preserved. "Living world" games perhaps can't be preserved in such a form that they can be experienced as they were originally, but I understand why you would want to, and I understand the concern about it. Perhaps Bungie has archival builds. I like to think where there's enough desire to be preserve, a way will be found.

All the talk about ownership by artist is a distraction. Name an artist who wouldn't like their work to live longer than they do. Sure they have the right to modify and change what they've done--let them. The only thing wrong with what George Lucas did was his insistence that the originals cease to exist. He destroyed culture. He destroyed history. Sure it was legal but that doesn't mean it was right.

Cody cares about the history of games. That's good. And he's right to talk about the lack of preservation given how games exist now. Where I differ with him is when he argues that any gamer should be able to have the experience they had originally forever. The game and gamer in this case can't exist without outside support. It's unrealistic to expect that to last forever or remain the same. For games of this sort preservation might not look like playability. Nothing last forever, but knowing what's gone before is rarely useless knowledge.

Avatar

I'm with Cody on this.

by Malagate @, Sea of Tranquility, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 07:35 (328 days ago) @ Kermit

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?


For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.


So I guess you are cool with not having an official HD version of the Original Star Wars Trilogy. It's Lucas' right after all.


Honestly? Yes, I’m fine with that. I think it’s sheer idiocy to suggest otherwise. If I paint a masterpiece, put it in galleries all over the world and everyone falls in love with it, it’s still my painting, and I’ll draw little squiggly mustaches all over it if I want to. George Lucas doesn’t owe the world a fucking thing.

Do I wish we had an HD version of the original cut? Sure. But I didn’t make the goddamn movie, so that’s not my choice.

Do I wish I could go play Destiny with Dinklebot? Absolutely! But again, that’s not my choice, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.


Art is part of culture, and the bigger impact it has on the culture the more important it is. Whether you call it art or culture it's important historically to preserve Star Wars in its original form.

Everything can't be preserved. "Living world" games perhaps can't be preserved in such a form that they can be experienced as they were originally, but I understand why you would want to, and I understand the concern about it. Perhaps Bungie has archival builds. I like to think where there's enough desire to be preserve, a way will be found.

To what end, though? The population, whether by their own desire or not, will have moved on. The experience itself will have changed. The population won't be present. At some point, some group will perform the last completion of XYZ raid, and it will never happen again. Likewise with public events, etc. Games, and in particular games that make an attempt at a living world with cooperative goals, are particularly susceptible to this...temporality, for lack of a better term.

All the talk about ownership by artist is a distraction. Name an artist who wouldn't like their work to live longer than they do. Sure they have the right to modify and change what they've done--let them. The only thing wrong with what George Lucas did was his insistence that the originals cease to exist. He destroyed culture. He destroyed history. Sure it was legal but that doesn't mean it was right.

Agree here. The artist releases the work into the world and has less control over it, by default. And has no control over what the audience does with it or how it's received. Obviously the game(s) in question here are subject to developer control, but the notion still holds true for the most part.

Cody cares about the history of games. That's good. And he's right to talk about the lack of preservation given how games exist now. Where I differ with him is when he argues that any gamer should be able to have the experience they had originally forever. The game and gamer in this case can't exist without outside support. It's unrealistic to expect that to last forever or remain the same. For games of this sort preservation might not look like playability. Nothing last forever, but knowing what's gone before is rarely useless knowledge.

Just going to offer that we do have a record of the state of a given game in the countless hours of streamer footage that get archived on youtube, screencaps, etc. Demanding playability or that any piece of software be made available in a particular state after the fact is nonsense. Sure, unauthorized servers for MMOs have existed for as long as MMOs have been a thing, and they've been subject to all the perils one would expect. But that's also a bit like me saying I've seen the Cistine Chapel before restoration, and I want to erect my own pre-restoration version. With cocaine. And...you get the idea.

Archival for stand-alone software isn't a bad goal, but online-only media, I don't think there's a way to practically do it. Even any conversation about such a title will be rife with temporal caveats. "Oh yeah, X was great before Y. And then later they added Z." The experience will always be incomplete for anyone that wasn't there.

Avatar

I'm with Cody on this.

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 07:49 (328 days ago) @ Malagate

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?


For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.


So I guess you are cool with not having an official HD version of the Original Star Wars Trilogy. It's Lucas' right after all.


Honestly? Yes, I’m fine with that. I think it’s sheer idiocy to suggest otherwise. If I paint a masterpiece, put it in galleries all over the world and everyone falls in love with it, it’s still my painting, and I’ll draw little squiggly mustaches all over it if I want to. George Lucas doesn’t owe the world a fucking thing.

Do I wish we had an HD version of the original cut? Sure. But I didn’t make the goddamn movie, so that’s not my choice.

Do I wish I could go play Destiny with Dinklebot? Absolutely! But again, that’s not my choice, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.


Art is part of culture, and the bigger impact it has on the culture the more important it is. Whether you call it art or culture it's important historically to preserve Star Wars in its original form.

Everything can't be preserved. "Living world" games perhaps can't be preserved in such a form that they can be experienced as they were originally, but I understand why you would want to, and I understand the concern about it. Perhaps Bungie has archival builds. I like to think where there's enough desire to be preserve, a way will be found.

To what end, though? The population, whether by their own desire or not, will have moved on. The experience itself will have changed. The population won't be present. At some point, some group will perform the last completion of XYZ raid, and it will never happen again. Likewise with public events, etc. Games, and in particular games that make an attempt at a living world with cooperative goals, are particularly susceptible to this...temporality, for lack of a better term.

Depends on how much you care about preserving history. Preserving history is a useful end.

All the talk about ownership by artist is a distraction. Name an artist who wouldn't like their work to live longer than they do. Sure they have the right to modify and change what they've done--let them. The only thing wrong with what George Lucas did was his insistence that the originals cease to exist. He destroyed culture. He destroyed history. Sure it was legal but that doesn't mean it was right.

Agree here. The artist releases the work into the world and has less control over it, by default. And has no control over what the audience does with it or how it's received. Obviously the game(s) in question here are subject to developer control, but the notion still holds true for the most part.

Cody cares about the history of games. That's good. And he's right to talk about the lack of preservation given how games exist now. Where I differ with him is when he argues that any gamer should be able to have the experience they had originally forever. The game and gamer in this case can't exist without outside support. It's unrealistic to expect that to last forever or remain the same. For games of this sort preservation might not look like playability. Nothing last forever, but knowing what's gone before is rarely useless knowledge.


Just going to offer that we do have a record of the state of a given game in the countless hours of streamer footage that get archived on youtube, screencaps, etc. Demanding playability or that any piece of software be made available in a particular state after the fact is nonsense. Sure, unauthorized servers for MMOs have existed for as long as MMOs have been a thing, and they've been subject to all the perils one would expect. But that's also a bit like me saying I've seen the Cistine Chapel before restoration, and I want to erect my own pre-restoration version. With cocaine. And...you get the idea.

Archival for stand-alone software isn't a bad goal, but online-only media, I don't think there's a way to practically do it. Even any conversation about such a title will be rife with temporal caveats. "Oh yeah, X was great before Y. And then later they added Z." The experience will always be incomplete for anyone that wasn't there.

Well, there's the wayback machine on the internet. I agree it's difficult and I think footage is what we'll likely end up with, but on the other hand, Microsoft has done a pretty good job preserving the Halo franchise's playability.

Avatar

I'm with Cody on this.

by Malagate @, Sea of Tranquility, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 08:00 (328 days ago) @ Kermit

To erase parts of the game you don’t want anymore, like Dinklebot or the original mission order?


For some of us, yes. And it's the developers right to do so.


So I guess you are cool with not having an official HD version of the Original Star Wars Trilogy. It's Lucas' right after all.


Honestly? Yes, I’m fine with that. I think it’s sheer idiocy to suggest otherwise. If I paint a masterpiece, put it in galleries all over the world and everyone falls in love with it, it’s still my painting, and I’ll draw little squiggly mustaches all over it if I want to. George Lucas doesn’t owe the world a fucking thing.

Do I wish we had an HD version of the original cut? Sure. But I didn’t make the goddamn movie, so that’s not my choice.

Do I wish I could go play Destiny with Dinklebot? Absolutely! But again, that’s not my choice, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.


Art is part of culture, and the bigger impact it has on the culture the more important it is. Whether you call it art or culture it's important historically to preserve Star Wars in its original form.

Everything can't be preserved. "Living world" games perhaps can't be preserved in such a form that they can be experienced as they were originally, but I understand why you would want to, and I understand the concern about it. Perhaps Bungie has archival builds. I like to think where there's enough desire to be preserve, a way will be found.

To what end, though? The population, whether by their own desire or not, will have moved on. The experience itself will have changed. The population won't be present. At some point, some group will perform the last completion of XYZ raid, and it will never happen again. Likewise with public events, etc. Games, and in particular games that make an attempt at a living world with cooperative goals, are particularly susceptible to this...temporality, for lack of a better term.


Depends on how much you care about preserving history. Preserving history is a useful end.

Sure, and I don't disagree there. It's just that the format we're talking about would necessitate an endeavor that is so impractical, for relatively so little gain, as to be irrational. And yeah, there's no accounting for taste, love knows no bounds, etc. But following that rabbit hole takes one squarely into the realm of passion project/obsession, and well out of the realm of conscientious posterity.

All the talk about ownership by artist is a distraction. Name an artist who wouldn't like their work to live longer than they do. Sure they have the right to modify and change what they've done--let them. The only thing wrong with what George Lucas did was his insistence that the originals cease to exist. He destroyed culture. He destroyed history. Sure it was legal but that doesn't mean it was right.

Agree here. The artist releases the work into the world and has less control over it, by default. And has no control over what the audience does with it or how it's received. Obviously the game(s) in question here are subject to developer control, but the notion still holds true for the most part.

Cody cares about the history of games. That's good. And he's right to talk about the lack of preservation given how games exist now. Where I differ with him is when he argues that any gamer should be able to have the experience they had originally forever. The game and gamer in this case can't exist without outside support. It's unrealistic to expect that to last forever or remain the same. For games of this sort preservation might not look like playability. Nothing last forever, but knowing what's gone before is rarely useless knowledge.


Just going to offer that we do have a record of the state of a given game in the countless hours of streamer footage that get archived on youtube, screencaps, etc. Demanding playability or that any piece of software be made available in a particular state after the fact is nonsense. Sure, unauthorized servers for MMOs have existed for as long as MMOs have been a thing, and they've been subject to all the perils one would expect. But that's also a bit like me saying I've seen the Cistine Chapel before restoration, and I want to erect my own pre-restoration version. With cocaine. And...you get the idea.

Archival for stand-alone software isn't a bad goal, but online-only media, I don't think there's a way to practically do it. Even any conversation about such a title will be rife with temporal caveats. "Oh yeah, X was great before Y. And then later they added Z." The experience will always be incomplete for anyone that wasn't there.


Well, there's the wayback machine on the internet. I agree it's difficult and I think footage is what we'll likely end up with, but on the other hand, Microsoft has done a pretty good job preserving the Halo franchise's playability.

Agreed there. I rolled my eyes for years when I heard people talking about Halo Anniversary; I've known too many hardcore players of various games over the years who couldn't move on to newer games because they'd found their comfort zone and wanted to remain dominant within their playground of choice. I figured it was more of the same. And then it was actually released, and it was fun. But I'll say the MCC; since they fixed it, is a dream realized. But we're still talking games that can run the entire experience on local hardware.

PS - H2 Anniversary is better than Halo 5.

Avatar

I'm with Cody on this.

by Funkmon @, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 06:19 (327 days ago) @ Malagate

When I was doing historical linguistics crap at school, one of the greatest assets we could have are multiple revisions of a particular document.

For example, we can truly see the differences in English over a small time frame from Old English to Middle English, where, sixty years after one thing was written, it was copied word for word, except plurals were modern, or a French or Norse word was put in place of an English word.

So, I understand Cody's dread that this be lost. Every time we have a document dated from 1300 which we know is a copy of something from 800, but don't have the original, it opens so many questions.

That being said, Ma1 right here explains why it's fine that our version of the game has been lost and why it's actually fine about the Star Wars footage.

Do we have the binaries or the source of the game? No. What we have is good enough for almost any cultural and historical use though. We have billions of hours of Dinklebot footage and audio, both through Cody's efforts and through massive recording and broadcasting of the game. The game can be pieced together if necessary from footage.

We have high def theatrical editions of Star Wars pieced together from myriad film reels and sources. Examine the silver screen edition or whatever that crap is from Myspleen everyone talks about.

This is basically proof that we don't, for virtually all intents and purposes, need originals. We need enough reference materials to the originals, and the game is near as makes no difference preserved.

And let's be honest: it doesn't really matter if Star Wars is in high def in its original format. I have the original cuts on DVD, and I can watch and enjoy them if I choose (which I don't because they're mostly worse) and that's enough for history. We don't need the negatives. We don't even need DVDs, since there's laserdisc. That's 100% fine for virtually all purposes.

Avatar

I'm with Cody on this.

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 06:32 (327 days ago) @ Funkmon

When I was doing historical linguistics crap at school, one of the greatest assets we could have are multiple revisions of a particular document.

For example, we can truly see the differences in English over a small time frame from Old English to Middle English, where, sixty years after one thing was written, it was copied word for word, except plurals were modern, or a French or Norse word was put in place of an English word.

So, I understand Cody's dread that this be lost. Every time we have a document dated from 1300 which we know is a copy of something from 800, but don't have the original, it opens so many questions.

That being said, Ma1 right here explains why it's fine that our version of the game has been lost and why it's actually fine about the Star Wars footage.

Do we have the binaries or the source of the game? No. What we have is good enough for almost any cultural and historical use though. We have billions of hours of Dinklebot footage and audio, both through Cody's efforts and through massive recording and broadcasting of the game. The game can be pieced together if necessary from footage.

We have high def theatrical editions of Star Wars pieced together from myriad film reels and sources. Examine the silver screen edition or whatever that crap is from Myspleen everyone talks about.

This is basically proof that we don't, for virtually all intents and purposes, need originals. We need enough reference materials to the originals, and the game is near as makes no difference preserved.

And let's be honest: it doesn't really matter if Star Wars is in high def in its original format. I have the original cuts on DVD, and I can watch and enjoy them if I choose (which I don't because they're mostly worse) and that's enough for history. We don't need the negatives. We don't even need DVDs, since there's laserdisc. That's 100% fine for virtually all purposes.

Don't agree with the lumping the Star Wars issue in there. That's where I side with Cody completely from a fan perspective. It's utter bullshit that I can't buy the version of the movie I saw in 1977.

Avatar

But you can

by Harmanimus @, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 09:18 (327 days ago) @ Kermit

OT Theatrical Cut Box Set is 249.95 (plus shipping) on Amazon. But only if you want to buy new.

Avatar

But you can

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 10:21 (327 days ago) @ Harmanimus

OT Theatrical Cut Box Set is 249.95 (plus shipping) on Amazon. But only if you want to buy new.

Standard Def dude. It's a regular DVD. It's horrible. It's not even mastered in anamorphic. Basically they took the laserdisc masters, fucked up the color, and made DVDs.

Avatar

HAHAAHAHA FUNNY

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Monday, January 14, 2019, 06:20 (330 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Destiny 2 was the best selling digital game in the month of September, I mean who the fuck would buy it Physically? The vast, vast majority bought Forsaken digitally.


I did not even know there was a physical option. If I had know, I would have.

Only vanilla D1 or D2 have ever been available on disc as far as I know. It would be silly to manufacture new discs.

Avatar

You're both wrong, but it's okay to have a positive attitude

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Monday, January 14, 2019, 05:18 (330 days ago) @ Korny

Agreed, everything points towards Bungie initiating the move.


I mean, with disappointing sales and a poor reception to alternate monetization to boost poor mtx sales, of course Bungie had the upper hand.

Publishers routinely announce disappointment regardless of how well a title performs. It looks to me like Bungie called their bluff on this point.

Bungie had the upper hand because they wrote it into the contract. The terms under which Activision could walk away with IP ownership were limited.

I think a variation of the scenario with Microsoft occurred, something along these lines:

Bungie is unhappy with Activision's involvement. Either they wanted certain process changes that ATVI was unwilling to make, or Bungie just wants them gone. So the options become: ATVI says no, you can't get out without a material breach and we haven't committed one.

Fine, says Bungie. Destiny 3 is cancelled. That puts Bungie in breach at the very end of the contract and likely puts the entire mess into litigation. Royalties from past titles will be held in escrow. ATVI can walk out of this with full ownership and control of a series primarily known because of its association with the developer they just took to court, and now they have to find another studio to finish the series, or else give up and cancel it themselves.

The other option is just to let Bungie bow out. ATVI stops whatever ongoing milestone payments are due, probably agrees to stop backend maintenance payments as well, which would otherwise be owed to Bungie for another 2 years-- presumably Bungie has enough of a war chest built up, or else can use some of the NetEase money for this.

Heck, for all we know, what NetEase actually wanted wasn't "Matter" but a new "Destiny-like for China" but perhaps that was was impermissible due to the licensing to ATVI. Now all those licenses revert back to Bungie. Destiny is already more MTX-heavy in other markets.

There is no way to spin this as either a positive for ATVI or a good strategic move by them. No matter how disappointing, the savings they are getting by not supporting Bungie or marketing Destiny are not going to make up for the lost revenue, and the market knows this, which is why ATVI dropped 10% rather than going up. The market did not see this as ATVI shedding useless weight, it is instead wondering why ATVI doesn't have a solid stable of intellectual properties to develop.

What I find amazing about the entire series of moves, from the TTWO deal until now, is that as far as I can tell there has been no one consistent individual involved on Bungie's behalf on the business side. Seropian was supposedly doing that stuff way back in the beginning, but he left after the MSFT purchase. The closest candidate I can think of is Pete Parsons.

Avatar

You're both wrong, but it's okay to have a positive attitude

by Harmanimus @, Monday, January 14, 2019, 12:36 (329 days ago) @ narcogen

You also have to account that some of the loss of ATVI value may stem from pending investigations into possible Securities Fraud in the company.

Avatar

Stock drop caused "investigation" not the other way around.

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 06:21 (329 days ago) @ Harmanimus

You also have to account that some of the loss of ATVI value may stem from pending investigations into possible Securities Fraud in the company.

No, because that was caused BY the separation from Bungie. They are not isolated incidents.

The "fraud investigation" is a class action lawsuit being offered to investors who were affected by the single-day stock drop that was caused by the announcement of the end of the deal with Bungie. The announcement from the law firm provides the mention of the end of the Bungie agreement as the only context for their invitation to investors to join the class action.

A lot of irresponsible reporting has portrayed this as an SEC "investigation", which currently it is not. The law firm, attempting to drum up business for their class action, uses that word to make their offer sound more officious.

Now, I'm not saying ATVI didn't mislead investors. It is possible they did. If they knew this was going to happen before the last time they made guidance and did not include it, they very well did mislead investors.

But the stock drop was NOT caused by the announcement of the "investigation", the "investigation" was caused by the stock drop which was caused by the Bungie announcement-- even the law firm doing the "investigation" says so.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investiga...

Avatar

Stock drop caused "investigation" not the other way around.

by Harmanimus @, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 14:28 (328 days ago) @ narcogen

I just brought it up because it continued to drop after the investigation was reported. I didn’t intend the implication that causes were reversed.

You're both wrong, but it's okay to have a positive attitude

by metwaf100, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 06:41 (328 days ago) @ narcogen

Jason Jones is the majority shareholder of Bungie, Alex Seropian did do business back in the day, and although I'm sure Pete handles 99% of all business decisions Jones as a very, VERY big say in what happens.

Avatar

Chinese curse

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 18:40 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

"May you live in interesting times."

I honestly don't know what to think about this. If Bungie employees are drinking champagne over it, then great,

They've had champagne before though. I'll keep watching. The Bungie story has taken another dramatic turn.

P.S. Hi Jilly! Hi Levi!

Bungie is FREE

by metwaf100, Friday, January 11, 2019, 00:56 (333 days ago) @ Kermit

I honestly am shocked. I don't even know how to react, I just woke up to this news. Crazy fucking shit.

Avatar

Alright. Who snuck a sock into Bungie Headquarters? *NM*

by INSANEdrive, ಥ_ಥ | f(ಠ‿↼)z | ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ| \[T]/, Friday, January 11, 2019, 11:50 (333 days ago) @ metwaf100

Best take in here

by electricpirate @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 21:23 (333 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Avatar

"That D2 puzzle was so difficult even Activision gave up"

by INSANEdrive, ಥ_ಥ | f(ಠ‿↼)z | ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ| \[T]/, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 23:10 (333 days ago) @ electricpirate

- No text -

rofl

by Claude Errera @, Friday, January 11, 2019, 00:28 (333 days ago) @ electricpirate

- No text -

Avatar

Ha!

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Friday, January 11, 2019, 05:04 (333 days ago) @ electricpirate

I haven't been following this two closely (I'm at least two forges behind), but I must say: more like this, Bungie. Now that you've finally stumped the hive mind, don't tack back in the other direction. Keep it up.

Avatar

Our Destiny

by SonofMacPhisto @, Friday, January 11, 2019, 13:31 (332 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Great news, Bungie! Wishing you nothing but the best.

Our Destiny

by Avateur @, Friday, January 11, 2019, 16:41 (332 days ago) @ SonofMacPhisto

Long time no see buddy! Hope all is well! :D

Avatar

Life is good, friend! Hope you are well too. *NM*

by SonofMacPhisto @, Friday, January 11, 2019, 22:29 (332 days ago) @ Avateur

Still mad at you for that one Halo 3 headshot betrayal. ;)

Avatar

[waves]

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Saturday, January 12, 2019, 18:06 (331 days ago) @ SonofMacPhisto

- No text -

Avatar

<3

by SonofMacPhisto @, Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:50 (318 days ago) @ Kermit

- No text -

Avatar

You're alive!

by stabbim @, Des Moines, IA, USA, Monday, January 14, 2019, 07:56 (330 days ago) @ SonofMacPhisto

- No text -

Avatar

Any sign of the Chief? I think we lost him.

by SonofMacPhisto @, Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:51 (318 days ago) @ stabbim

Not yet. :)

Back to the forum index
RSS Feed of thread